There is no New Testament command to pay tithes
- Thread starter Runningman
- 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.
S
I do believe your line of thought about Melchizedek being a type of Christ and therefore his receiving tithes is significant thought that should be pursued further, I don't think you have done that yet. You should not dismiss the ability of people to comprehend you when you have not yet demonstrated hermeneutically that the writer of Hebrews was referring to Christ receiving tithes now as you put it.
The text says 8And here men that die receive tithes; (The levitical priests at the time of the writing of Hebrews, which is internal evidence that it was written before 70AD) but there (at this event of Abraham giving tithe to Melchizedek, in which "there" would mean at that time, )he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. You have taken the THERE and seem to be calling it NOW and though it seems to work in your own mind, you should not be surprised if it seems to others that you are not playing by the rules of syntax.
The text says 8And here men that die receive tithes; (The levitical priests at the time of the writing of Hebrews, which is internal evidence that it was written before 70AD) but there (at this event of Abraham giving tithe to Melchizedek, in which "there" would mean at that time, )he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. You have taken the THERE and seem to be calling it NOW and though it seems to work in your own mind, you should not be surprised if it seems to others that you are not playing by the rules of syntax.
-
1
- Show all
As we try to find out just what God wants us to do with the money we earn, there are several truths we must remember. First, Romans 14:8 8If we live, we live for the LORD; and if we die, we die for the LORD. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the LORD.
Also, scripture tells us that the first fruits belong to Him. Proverbs 3:9 Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops. Some say that nothing we are told in the old testament is from the Lord, but Christ told us that is not so and that He changed nothing. At times we are to listen to the spirit of the command but not the fleshly part like not needing to cut flesh but there is a need to be circumcised in the heart. Scripture agrees that God is the source of all our goods, we belong to Him, and we are obliged to give a portion of the first fruits of our labor to Him.
The question we must ask ourselves is where God wants us to give His portion of our income? Should it help support our church or help the needy, or is it needed in our own family? Each person needs to listen in prayer for the answer to that to him personally.
If you put the Lord's portion of your income in a fancy house, car, or fancy cloths, you are robbing the Lord.
Also, scripture tells us that the first fruits belong to Him. Proverbs 3:9 Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops. Some say that nothing we are told in the old testament is from the Lord, but Christ told us that is not so and that He changed nothing. At times we are to listen to the spirit of the command but not the fleshly part like not needing to cut flesh but there is a need to be circumcised in the heart. Scripture agrees that God is the source of all our goods, we belong to Him, and we are obliged to give a portion of the first fruits of our labor to Him.
The question we must ask ourselves is where God wants us to give His portion of our income? Should it help support our church or help the needy, or is it needed in our own family? Each person needs to listen in prayer for the answer to that to him personally.
If you put the Lord's portion of your income in a fancy house, car, or fancy cloths, you are robbing the Lord.
According to the Widow's Mite, you could start with 100% , then deduct necessary living expenses. Which would reverse the tithing idea. The problem is that too many churches have failed apply the gifts and offerings of Christians as directed by God. And too many have focused on elaborate buildings and corporate structures within the churches to the detriment of the Gospel and meeting the needs of needy saints. But one of the biggest blunders of most churches is allowing tax deductions and exemptions to enter into the picture.
Yes. That response was to the dismissive attitude in your previous post. I don't think you are a stubborn donkey, but you were acting like one. On other issues, you seem to have a pretty sound view and good attitude, so I'm surprised at your attitude on this matter.
It's up to you. Either way, I will support you when you're right, and call it out when you're wrong.
It's up to you. Either way, I will support you when you're right, and call it out when you're wrong.
-
1
- Show all
L
What?
Again, verb tenses matter in scripture.
"Receiveth" is a PRESENT INDICATIVE, so it was not referring to the time of Abraham and Melchizedek.
You seemingly want it to say "received", PAST TENSE, but it doesn't.
With such truly being the case, who was PRESENTLY RECEIVING TITHES, IN CONTEXT, at the time of the writing of the epistle?
Again, whoever it was, he was being contrasted with "men that die" (a changeable priesthood) while being "witnessed that he lives" (an unchangeable priesthood).
Do you believe that Melchizedek was still alive at that time and receiving (PRESENT INDICATIVE) tithes?
If you do, then you've got a lot of explaining to do.
Anyhow, "here", in context, certainly appears to be referring to an EARTHLY priesthood.
"There", in context and contrast, certainly appears to be referring to Christ's HEAVENLY priesthood at the Father's right hand.
Again, verb tenses matter in scripture.
"Receiveth" is a PRESENT INDICATIVE, so it was not referring to the time of Abraham and Melchizedek.
You seemingly want it to say "received", PAST TENSE, but it doesn't.
With such truly being the case, who was PRESENTLY RECEIVING TITHES, IN CONTEXT, at the time of the writing of the epistle?
Again, whoever it was, he was being contrasted with "men that die" (a changeable priesthood) while being "witnessed that he lives" (an unchangeable priesthood).
Do you believe that Melchizedek was still alive at that time and receiving (PRESENT INDICATIVE) tithes?
If you do, then you've got a lot of explaining to do.
Anyhow, "here", in context, certainly appears to be referring to an EARTHLY priesthood.
"There", in context and contrast, certainly appears to be referring to Christ's HEAVENLY priesthood at the Father's right hand.
No, not at all i dont agree. The thought of posting that came to me after reading the following comment:
I'm sure that it won't be long until someone comes along and accuses us of being cheap, or greedy, or both. 
-
1
- Show all
The words, "receiveth them" (KJV) aren't represented by words in the Greek. Instead, they were inserted so that the sentence makes sense in English. One interlinear puts verse 8 this way:
And here on one hand tithes dying men receive, there on the other being witnessed that he lives.
So, any argument that is based on the verb tense of "receiveth them" is flawed from the outset.
Verse 8 is talking about Melchizedek, not Jesus. Verse 3 sets it up for the reader...
Without faither, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Who abides as a priest continually? Like the Son of God, Melchizedek does. Verse 4 continues talking about Melchizedek:
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Abraham never gave a tenth of the spoils to Jesus, so "this man" must be Melchizedek. Verses 5 through 7 continue in reference to Melchizedek:
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
The "he" (bolded above) in verse 6 refers to Melchizedek, not to Jesus, per my note on verse 4. Now we get to verses 8 through 10:
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi, also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Verse 10 again identifies Melchizedek. Verse 8 is framed by verses 6 and 10, which both clearly refer to Melchizedek, not to Jesus.
Further, your argument that the verb tense in verse 8 informs us is undone by verse 9, wherein Levi also "receiveth" tithes... and in this case, the word "receiveth" is not an interpolation. Levi was long dead by the time Hebrews was written!
In summary, verse 8 simply does say anything at all about Jesus.
And here on one hand tithes dying men receive, there on the other being witnessed that he lives.
So, any argument that is based on the verb tense of "receiveth them" is flawed from the outset.
Verse 8 is talking about Melchizedek, not Jesus. Verse 3 sets it up for the reader...
Without faither, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Who abides as a priest continually? Like the Son of God, Melchizedek does. Verse 4 continues talking about Melchizedek:
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Abraham never gave a tenth of the spoils to Jesus, so "this man" must be Melchizedek. Verses 5 through 7 continue in reference to Melchizedek:
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
The "he" (bolded above) in verse 6 refers to Melchizedek, not to Jesus, per my note on verse 4. Now we get to verses 8 through 10:
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi, also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Verse 10 again identifies Melchizedek. Verse 8 is framed by verses 6 and 10, which both clearly refer to Melchizedek, not to Jesus.
Further, your argument that the verb tense in verse 8 informs us is undone by verse 9, wherein Levi also "receiveth" tithes... and in this case, the word "receiveth" is not an interpolation. Levi was long dead by the time Hebrews was written!
In summary, verse 8 simply does say anything at all about Jesus.
-
1
- Show all
L
It's not flawed at all, as you just proved yourself.
The underlying Greek word which is here translated as "receive" is a PRESENT INDICATIVE. In direct correlation to this PRESENT INDICATIVE, the writer mentions the one who is "witnessed that he lives". THIS is the context, and it applies to BOTH those who die (the Levites) and the one of whom it is "witnessed that he lives". Again, he LIVES. You would like it to say that he LIVED, but that is not what the text says. You're forcing your own desired interpretation upon the text. I'm merely telling you what it actually says.
And...?
Why wouldn't verse 9 say "receiveth" (PRESENT INDICATIVE) when the Levitical priesthood was still operating at that time because the temple hadn't yet been destroyed?
The underlying Greek word which is here translated as "receive" is a PRESENT INDICATIVE. In direct correlation to this PRESENT INDICATIVE, the writer mentions the one who is "witnessed that he lives". THIS is the context, and it applies to BOTH those who die (the Levites) and the one of whom it is "witnessed that he lives". Again, he LIVES. You would like it to say that he LIVED, but that is not what the text says. You're forcing your own desired interpretation upon the text. I'm merely telling you what it actually says.
And...?
Why wouldn't verse 9 say "receiveth" (PRESENT INDICATIVE) when the Levitical priesthood was still operating at that time because the temple hadn't yet been destroyed?
L
What a load of rubbish, btw.
I've gone back and reread the thread from the beginning, and YOU are the one who blew your little gasket.
First by disagreeing with one of my posts that was/is true, and then furthermore later on.
With such being the case, you might want to take that beam out of your own eye.
I've gone back and reread the thread from the beginning, and YOU are the one who blew your little gasket.
First by disagreeing with one of my posts that was/is true, and then furthermore later on.
With such being the case, you might want to take that beam out of your own eye.
"In 1954, when Lyndon Johnson was a senator from Texas, he introduced an amendment to the tax code. The “Johnson Amendment” prohibits all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Not considered controversial at the time, it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican....
...Under this amendment, tax-exempt entities, such as churches and charitable organizations, are unable to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate. Specifically, ministers are restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status...
...President Trump, during his campaign, promised he would work to repeal the Johnson Amendment as part of his extensive outreach efforts to religious conservatives, a group that took a long time to warm to his candidacy. Conservatives have argued that it violates the protections of free speech and free exercise that the First Amendment extends to houses of worship...
https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/o...es-government-control-over-churches/97571818/
Which means that if a very evil candidate is running for office, a preacher or a church cannot say anything. It is an effective muzzle. But as we know from Scripture, preacher John the Baptist spoke out against evildoer king Herod, and all churches should be free to speak out and expose evildoers running for office. That is a part of being salt and light.
Today all churches should be able to ignore and defy the bogus COVID restrictions, which are violating freedom of worship. But chances are they may lose their tax-exempt status if they totally ignore all the COVID nonsense.
...Under this amendment, tax-exempt entities, such as churches and charitable organizations, are unable to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate. Specifically, ministers are restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status...
...President Trump, during his campaign, promised he would work to repeal the Johnson Amendment as part of his extensive outreach efforts to religious conservatives, a group that took a long time to warm to his candidacy. Conservatives have argued that it violates the protections of free speech and free exercise that the First Amendment extends to houses of worship...
https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/o...es-government-control-over-churches/97571818/
Which means that if a very evil candidate is running for office, a preacher or a church cannot say anything. It is an effective muzzle. But as we know from Scripture, preacher John the Baptist spoke out against evildoer king Herod, and all churches should be free to speak out and expose evildoers running for office. That is a part of being salt and light.
Today all churches should be able to ignore and defy the bogus COVID restrictions, which are violating freedom of worship. But chances are they may lose their tax-exempt status if they totally ignore all the COVID nonsense.
L
Hi, Evmur.
May I ask what you mean by "Paul avoids the law like the plague"?
I ask because Paul (and others) regularly cited Old Testament passages of scripture as the basis for New Testament doctrine.
In fact, if anybody actually took the time to read my initial post here, then they'd see three clear-cut examples of the same in relation to money/giving.
Again, Paul said:
I Timothy chapter 5
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Again:
I Corinthians chapter 9
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
In the context of providing for God's ministers, Paul twice quoted from "the law" (Deut. 25:4) as the basis for his teaching.
Again, Paul said:
I Corinthians chapter 9
[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Who is Paul talking about in verse 13?
Is he not talking about the Levitical priests who were sustained by the offerings brought into the temple?
Well, in the same way the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
What about this?
II Corinthians chapter 8
[1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
[2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
[3] For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
[4] Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
[5] And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.
[6] Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
[7] Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.
[8] I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
[9] For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
[10] And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
[11] Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
[12] For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
[13] For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
[14] But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
[15] As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
Contextually, the grace of God which was bestowed upon the churches in Macedonia was manifested BY THEIR GIVING, and not by their receiving (which is what we normally equate God's grace with).
Don't miss what Paul cited to show these tight-fisted Corinthians that God has desired equality among his saints all along.
His citation comes directly from "the law" or from the writings of Moses:
Exodus chapter 16
[15] And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
[16] This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.
[17] And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.
[18] And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.
Anyhow, although Paul didn't teach "the law" as the means for obtaining righteousness, he pretty regularly cited from the same in relation to New Testament doctrine.
May I ask what you mean by "Paul avoids the law like the plague"?
I ask because Paul (and others) regularly cited Old Testament passages of scripture as the basis for New Testament doctrine.
In fact, if anybody actually took the time to read my initial post here, then they'd see three clear-cut examples of the same in relation to money/giving.
Again, Paul said:
I Timothy chapter 5
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
[18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Again:
I Corinthians chapter 9
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
In the context of providing for God's ministers, Paul twice quoted from "the law" (Deut. 25:4) as the basis for his teaching.
Again, Paul said:
I Corinthians chapter 9
[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Who is Paul talking about in verse 13?
Is he not talking about the Levitical priests who were sustained by the offerings brought into the temple?
Well, in the same way the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
What about this?
II Corinthians chapter 8
[1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
[2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
[3] For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
[4] Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
[5] And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.
[6] Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
[7] Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.
[8] I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
[9] For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
[10] And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
[11] Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
[12] For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
[13] For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
[14] But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
[15] As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
Contextually, the grace of God which was bestowed upon the churches in Macedonia was manifested BY THEIR GIVING, and not by their receiving (which is what we normally equate God's grace with).
Don't miss what Paul cited to show these tight-fisted Corinthians that God has desired equality among his saints all along.
His citation comes directly from "the law" or from the writings of Moses:
Exodus chapter 16
[15] And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
[16] This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.
[17] And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.
[18] And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.
Anyhow, although Paul didn't teach "the law" as the means for obtaining righteousness, he pretty regularly cited from the same in relation to New Testament doctrine.
-
1
- Show all