There is no New Testament command to pay tithes

[Scribe]

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.

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2To 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; 3Without father, 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.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5And 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: 6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

It is not a reference to Jesus at the right hand of the Father. It is a reference that Melchisediec has no record in the scriptures of mother or father, or beginning of days or end of life and like the Son of God abideth a preist continually. This is the testimony that he liveth. The testimony of this passage of scripture he is referring to is the "testimony" he is invoking.

It is an allegory for the sake of his argument. And that argument was that Christ was greater than the Levitical priesthood and continues forever.

However I think there is embedded in this allegorical argument a reason to call the giving of tithe to the Church an act of faith that is not based on the law or Levitical tithe but a greater faith motivated form of tithe from a heart of faith as unto Christ of which Melchisedec is a type then the idea of giving Christ tithe is not a legalistic concept at all. I do think from that perspective there is something to say about tithing to Christ can be seen in the allegory of tithing to Melchisedec. It is definitely worth meditation.

 

[Dino246]

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.

There is no underlying Greek word for "receiveth" in verse 8.

 

[Live4Him]

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2To 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; 3Without father, 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.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5And 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: 6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

It is not a reference to Jesus at the right hand of the Father. It is a reference that Melchisediec has no record in the scriptures of mother or father, or beginning of days or end of life and like the Son of God abideth a preist continually. This is the testimony that he liveth. The testimony of this passage of scripture he is referring to is the "testimony" he is invoking.

It is an allegory for the sake of his argument. And that argument was that Christ was greater than the Levitical priesthood and continues forever.

However I think there is embedded in this allegorical argument a reason to call the giving of tithe to the Church an act of faith that is not based on the law or Levitical tithe but a greater faith motivated form of tithe from a heart of faith as unto Christ of which Melchisedec is a type then the idea of giving Christ tithe is not a legalistic concept at all. I do think from that perspective there is something to say about tithing to Christ can be seen in the allegory of tithing to Melchisedec. It is definitely worth meditation.

I don't know if there's a communication gap between us or what, but, again, this is written in the PRESENT INDICATIVE.

Are you saying that Melchizedek was PRESENTLY receiving tithes at the time of this writing AND that he was presently alive or "liveth"?

I'm asking because THIS is what the text says, and if your interpretation of the same isn't in the PRESENT INDICATIVE, then it's simply not the correct interpretation.

Do you at least understand what I'm saying?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or disrespectful.

Instead, I'm just wondering if you're missing what I'm saying somehow.

 

[Live4Him]

There is no underlying Greek word for "receiveth" in verse 8.

How can you say that when you quoted it yourself?

 

[Dino246]

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.

Disagreeing is a long way from "blowing a gasket"... and your insult is noted.

My first post to you, #36, was calm. My second post to you, #38, was calm, though I was direct.

My third post to you, #39, was a response to your post #37 to me, in which you made the following statements:

You people are too funny.

And

Apparently, not from you or others here who ignore portions of scripture which challenge their present manners of giving.

To each his/her own.

So, since you can't own your c**p, and instead prefer to project it on to others, I'm done with you.

 

[Live4Him]

Disagreeing is a long way from "blowing a gasket"... and your insult is noted.

My first post to you, #36, was calm. My second post to you, #38, was calm, though I was direct.

My third post to you, #39, was a response to your post #37 to me, in which you made the following statements:



And


So, since you can't own your c**p, and instead prefer to project it on to others, I'm done with you.

Which means that you have no answer.

Just as I expected.

Try rereading Hebrews while you're gone.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

You people are too funny.

Again, Abraham payed his tithes to MELCHIZEDEK, the priest of the most high God, whose priesthood foreshadowed Christ's current priesthood in heaven. As I've already documented more than once here, Jesus, as our high priest "after the order of Melchizedek, now receives tithes.

Who is he receiving them from?

Apparently, not from you or others here who ignore portions of scripture which challenge their present manners of giving.

To each his/her own.

I don't have any spoils of war to give a tenth of. Maybe I should conquer somewhere. Who do I attack? and then where do I take the tenth? There is no temple and our high priest does not occupy any physical space among us.
I'm sure you don't want to impose the Mosaic law upon us. If you do impose Moses on us, where is the temple that I may buy calves to sacrifice and wine and such to eat before the Lord... oh wait Jesus is the final sacrifice... So we wouldn't want to invalidate Christ's atonement and return to the bondage of the law. Well we are in a pickle now

 

[Live4Him]

I don't have any spoils of war to give a tenth of. Maybe I should conquer somewhere. Who do I attack? and then where do I take the tenth? There is no temple and our high priest does not occupy any physical space among us.
I'm sure you don't want to impose the Mosaic law upon us. If you do impose Moses on us, where is the temple that I may buy calves to sacrifice and wine and such to eat before the Lord... oh wait Jesus is the final sacrifice... So we wouldn't want to invalidate Christ's atonement and return to the bondage of the law. Well we are in a pickle now

All that effort wasted on sarcasm.

Well, some people will like it...if that's what you're after.

Whatever the case may be, who do you think the writer was referring to in Hebrews 7:8 and why?

 

[Scribe]

I don't know if there's a communication gap between us or what, but, again, this is written in the PRESENT INDICATIVE.

Are you saying that Melchizedek was PRESENTLY receiving tithes at the time of this writing AND that he was presently alive or "liveth"?

I'm asking because THIS is what the text says, and if your interpretation of the same isn't in the PRESENT INDICATIVE, then it's simply not the correct interpretation.

Do you at least understand what I'm saying?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or disrespectful.

Instead, I'm just wondering if you're missing what I'm saying somehow.

Allegorically he liveth forever was said about Melchisedec?

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

in the statement "but there he receiveth them" the receiveth them is added by the translators to add meaning for the English as "but there he of whom it is witnessed he liveth" does not translate in a meaningful way. You can make no argument for the Greek tense of a word that is not in the original text but added by the translators.

No offence but I would not attempt to explain Greek syntax grammar rules until I have completed at least two years of Greek and maybe not until the third year. If I want to dig deeper into the Greek syntactical and lexical rules of these statements I would reference a scholarly technical commentary written by someone who is expert in the manuscripts and the rules and I would quote their presentation on this verse. Which is probably a good idea if I really was confused about who he is referring to but using the context to guide me I am confident that his allegorical argument is that Melchesidek received tithe from Abraham and that his priesthood abiding forever applies to Christ not that Melchesidek the human is still alive.

But as I said. I think you have indeed discovered a good point though I would not take it as far as you did to say that the author of Hebrews was saying that Jesus is receiving tithes from the church at the right hand of the Father.

I would say that if it is true that Melchisedec received tithe from Abraham before the law (and notice that it was a tenth of the spoils and not crops or the specifics of the tithe laws that some have tried to use as an argument that a tenth of your income is not a tithe, and yet here is a tenth of the spoils of war which in that time would have been equivalent to our money, since it would be the most valuable possessions.) and if it is true that Abraham giving tithe to Melchisedec could be thought of as allegorically giving tithe to Christ, then I think there is an argument to be made about giving tithes to Christ.

I am just not comfortable with interpreting "there of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" is talking about Christ on the right hand of the Father but rather Melchisedek receiving them from Abraham. Also notice that he says Levi also, who receiveth tithes, which is actually in the original and we know that Levi was not alive receiving tithe at the right hand of the Father nor anywhere in the temple at Jerusalem therefore it is not possible to use your method for argument on the tense of the word receiveth in the passage where the word is not in the original and not use the same argument for the word where it is in the original. You would have to say that Levi was also receiving tithes when he wrote this. But we know that is not what he meant. In either case where the word receiveth is used.

 

[Dino246]

Which means that you have no answer.

Just as I expected.

Try rereading Hebrews while you're gone.

I told you in my post #71 on Hebrews 7 that the word rendered "receiveth them" does not exist in the Greek of verse 8. Perhaps you didn't read it.

Look in your KJV; the words, "receiveth them" are likely in italics. In standard printings of the KJV, this means that the words were added to English to make it clear, but don't exist in the Greek text.

 

[tourist]

Jesus did say to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.

 

[Scribe]

I don't have any spoils of war to give a tenth of. Maybe I should conquer somewhere. Who do I attack? and then where do I take the tenth? There is no temple and our high priest does not occupy any physical space among us.
I'm sure you don't want to impose the Mosaic law upon us. If you do impose Moses on us, where is the temple that I may buy calves to sacrifice and wine and such to eat before the Lord... oh wait Jesus is the final sacrifice... So we wouldn't want to invalidate Christ's atonement and return to the bondage of the law. Well we are in a pickle now

And yet you admit that Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. This was before the law. It seems that this hero of FAITH had a theology that included giving a tenth of income. As a matter of fact his being careful to give a tenth of the spoils before he relinquished all the rest of it to the king of Sodom because he did not want anyone to say they had made him rich, suggests that he had a strong theology about tithing. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it can probably be discovered that such a thing was not unknown in ancient near east literature. Maybe something similar was practiced by other cultures. I don't know. Probably not the first time Abraham had tithed. We don't know but we know that this giving of the tenth of the spoils of war would be equivalent to giving of the tenth of a discovery of treasure. It would be very much like giving a tenth of your stimulus check for those in the USA.

 

[Dino246]

"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.

Thanks.

I don't see how your concern has anything to do with this particular question though. Whether or not tax-exempt status is a good thing doesn't inform whether tithing is required of Christians.

 

[Live4Him]

Allegorically he liveth forever was said about Melchisedec?

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

in the statement "but there he receiveth them" the receiveth them is added by the translators to add meaning for the English as "but there he of whom it is witnessed he liveth" does not translate in a meaningful way. You can make no argument for the Greek tense of a word that is not in the original text but added by the translators.

No offence but I would not attempt to explain Greek syntax grammar rules until I have completed at least two years of Greek and maybe not until the third year. If I want to dig deeper into the Greek syntactical and lexical rules of these statements I would reference a scholarly technical commentary written by someone who is expert in the manuscripts and the rules and I would quote their presentation on this verse. Which is probably a good idea if I really was confused about who he is referring to but using the context to guide me I am confident that his allegorical argument is that Melchesidek received tithe from Abraham and that his priesthood abiding forever applies to Christ not that Melchesidek the human is still alive.

But as I said. I think you have indeed discovered a good point though I would not take it as far as you did to say that the author of Hebrews was saying that Jesus is receiving tithes from the church at the right hand of the Father.

I would say that if it is true that Melchisedec received tithe from Abraham before the law (and notice that it was a tenth of the spoils and not crops or the specifics of the tithe laws that some have tried to use as an argument that a tenth of your income is not a tithe, and yet here is a tenth of the spoils of war which in that time would have been equivalent to our money, since it would be the most valuable possessions.) and if it is true that Abraham giving tithe to Melchisedec could be thought of as allegorically giving tithe to Christ, then I think there is an argument to be made about giving tithes to Christ.

I am just not comfortable with interpreting "there of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" is talking about Christ on the right hand of the Father but rather Melchisedek receiving them from Abraham. Also notice that he says Levi also, who receiveth tithes, which is actually in the original and we know that Levi was not alive receiving tithe at the right hand of the Father nor anywhere in the temple at Jerusalem therefore it is not possible to use your method for argument on the tense of the word receiveth in the passage where the word is not in the original and not use the same argument for the word where it is in the original. You would have to say that Levi was also receiving tithes when he wrote this. But we know that is not what he meant. In either case where the word receiveth is used.

I'm not sure why you and another poster keep on insisting that "receiveth" is not in Hebrews 7:8.

Here is it from the Greek interlinear Bible:

5602 [e]
hōde
ὧδε
here
Adv
3303 [e]
men
μὲν
indeed
Conj
1181 [e]
dekatas
δεκάτας ,
tithes
Adj-AFP
599 [e]
apothnēskontes
ἀποθνῄσκοντες
dying
V-PPA-NMP
444 [e]
anthrōpoi
ἄνθρωποι
men
N-NMP
2983 [e]
lambanousin
λαμβάνουσιν ;
receive
V-PIA-3P
1563 [e]
ekei
ἐκεῖ
in that place
Adv
1161 [e]
de
δὲ ,
however
Conj
3140 [e]
martyroumenos
μαρτυρούμενος
it is testified
V-PPM/P-NMS
3754 [e]
hoti
ὅτι
that
Conj
2198 [e]
zē
ζῇ .
he lives on
V-PIA-3S​

It appears in the first part of the text, and the second part of the text is referring to it directly. In other words, BOTH parties are said to "receive" in the PRESENT INDICATIVE.

As far as Levi not being alive at that time is concerned, the reference isn't to Levi alone, but rather to the Levitical priesthood which was being contrasted with Melchizedek's priesthood and Christ's priesthood.

Are you saying that there were no Levites in the temple at the time of the writing of this epistle?

 

[Live4Him]

I told you in my post #71 on Hebrews 7 that the word rendered "receiveth them" does not exist in the Greek of verse 8. Perhaps you didn't read it.

Look in your KJV; the words, "receiveth them" are likely in italics. In standard printings of the KJV, this means that the words were added to English to make it clear, but don't exist in the Greek text.

I understand that they were added by the translators in the second part of that verse, but the word appears in the first part of the verse, and it is directly related to the second part of the verse.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

All that effort wasted on sarcasm.

Well, some people will like it...if that's what you're after.

Whatever the case may be, who do you think the writer was referring to in Hebrews 7:8 and why?

A rhetorical point that Jesus is the High priest, using a system the Hebrew brethren would understand.
Not establishing a new covenant tithe. Because no specific instruction is given. Laws come with instructions. Moses can't be used because the temple system is gone, and there was no provision for giving money.
The tithe is also a type and shadow of Christ. As it was sacrificed/ blood spilled, and eaten before the Lord, ie bread and wine.
The example of Abraham can't really be used either. We have no spoils of war to offer.
Rather the Offering is Jesus, his body and his blood spilled, and eaten before the Lord by us in the form of bread and wine.

 

[Live4Him]

A rhetorical point that Jesus is the High priest, using a system the Hebrew brethren would understand.
Not establishing a new covenant tithe. Because no specific instruction is given. Laws come with instructions. Moses can't be used because the temple system is gone, and there was no provision for giving money.
The tithe is also a type and shadow of Christ. As it was sacrificed/ blood spilled, and eaten before the Lord, ie bread and wine.
The example of Abraham can't really be used either. We have no spoils of war to offer.
Rather the Offering is Jesus, his body and his blood spilled, and eaten before the Lord by us in the form of bread and wine.

Well, I appreciate your response, but we apparently disagree.

I'm fine with that.

Have a good night.

 

[Dino246]

I understand that they were added by the translators in the second part of that verse, but the word appears in the first part of the verse, and it is directly related to the second part of the verse.

Which is what you were claiming implies Jesus instead of Melchizedek.

As I have explained, the verse doesn't apply to Jesus at all, and it is pointless to argue the tense of a word that doesn't exist in the Greek.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not sure why you and another poster keep on insisting that "receiveth" is not in Hebrews 7:8.

Here is it from the Greek interlinear Bible:
5602 [e]
hōde
ὧδε
here
Adv
3303 [e]
men
μὲν
indeed
Conj
1181 [e]
dekatas
δεκάτας ,
tithes
Adj-AFP
599 [e]
apothnēskontes
ἀποθνῄσκοντες
dying
V-PPA-NMP
444 [e]
anthrōpoi
ἄνθρωποι
men
N-NMP
2983 [e]
lambanousin
λαμβάνουσιν ;
receive
V-PIA-3P
1563 [e]
ekei
ἐκεῖ
in that place
Adv
1161 [e]
de
δὲ ,
however
Conj
3140 [e]
martyroumenos
μαρτυρούμενος
it is testified
V-PPM/P-NMS
3754 [e]
hoti
ὅτι
that
Conj
2198 [e]
zē
ζῇ .
he lives on
V-PIA-3S

It appears in the first part of the text, and the second part of the text is referring to it directly. In other words, BOTH parties are said to "receive" in the PRESENT INDICATIVE.

As far as Levi not being alive at that time is concerned, the reference isn't to Levi alone, but rather to the Levitical priesthood which was being contrasted with Melchizedek's priesthood and Christ's priesthood.

Are you saying that there were no Levites in the temple at the time of the writing of this epistle?

From William Lane:

8 In the one case, mortal men(k) exact a tenth, but, in the other case, one to whom witness is borne that he lives.(l)

And in the footnotes:
k. In the anarthrous construction ἀποθνῄσκοντες ἄνθρωποι, which is virtually adjectival, the present tense of the ptcp is frequentative, i.e., it refers to an action that recurs from time to time. It, therefore, means “men who are to die, mortal men” (Moulton, Grammar, 1:114).
l. The expression μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ is described by Moule as “a bold and rather unusual way” of declaring “it is attested that he is alive” (Idiom-Book, 104–5).

From the commentary on verse 8-10

8 The second contrast between Melchizedek and the Levitical priests is drawn in v 8. The basis of the comparison remains that both the Levitical priests and the priest of Salem received tithes. The emphasis, however, has shifted from the question of qualification (v 3a, 5–6a) to that of the relative duration of their respective ministries. The two halves of the verse are set in sharp contrast by the construction καὶ ὧδε μὲν . . . ἐκεῖ δέ . . . , “in the one case . . . but in the other . . .” In v 8a the participle ἀποθνῄσκοντες, “mortal,” is placed before the noun it modifies to characterize the Levitical priests who receive tithes as mortal men. Those who are appointed to priestly service by the law are subject to death and so have a series of successors. Although the term δεκάτας, “tithes,” and the appropriate form of λαμβάνειν, “to receive,” are not repeated in v 8b, they are implied. It is this fact which justifies the application of the extraordinary ascription ὅτι ζῇ, “that he lives,” to Melchizedek. As the clause stands, all the emphasis falls on the startling assertion that Melchizedek is “one to whom witness is borne that he is alive.” The term μαρτυρούμενος, “witness is borne,” almost certainly has reference to Scripture (cf. v 17; 10:5). In this context the declaration must refer back to v 3, which the writer considered to be exegetically established on the basis of Ps 110:4 and Gen 14:18–20. Scripture announces of Melchizedek only his living and the administration of a priesthood that is free from temporal limitation (cf. Schröger, Verfasser, 143; Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 74–78; Demarest, History of Interpretation, 136). The basis of Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levitical priests in this second contrast is the “eternity” of Melchizedek predicated in v 3b, which has in view the perpetuation of his priestly office. The importance of this aspect of the argument will become clear in vv 15–16, where it is applied to the messianic priest. So far as the record of Scripture is concerned, Melchizedek has no end of life and his unique priesthood has no successor. But what is true of Melchizedek in a limited and literary sense is true absolutely of the one who serves his people as high priest in the presence of God (F. F. Bruce, 141–42).

9–10 The climax of the argument is reached in v 9 and qualified in v 10. It specifies the implication of the first contrast between Melchizedek and the Levitical priests (vv 5–6a) by deducing the deeper significance of the fact that Abraham allotted a tithe to Melchizedek (Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 23–24, 78). The literary phrase ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, “one might almost say,” was frequently used when a writer broke off the train of his thought and, not wishing to treat his theme more fully, would summarize as succinctly as possible what he had to say. Here it indicates the writer clearly recognized his statement that Levi had paid a tithe to Melchizedek was not literally true, because at the moment in primal history when Abraham met Melchizedek Levi was as yet unborn. Nevertheless, the statement that Levi had himself paid the tithe was true in an important sense, indicated by the expression διʼ Ἀβραάμ, “through Abraham,” which immediately follows. The corporate solidarity that bound Israel to the patriarch implied that Levi was fully represented in Abraham’s action. Therefore, Levi’s status relative to Melchizedek was affected by Abraham’s relationship to that personage. Consequently, the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood is not merely theoretical but has a basis in history (cf. Riggenbach, 190–91; Williamson, Philo, 107–9; Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 78–80). The assertion in v 9 is justified and explained in v 10, as shown by the explanatory conjunction γάρ, “because.” Although Levi was as yet unborn when Melchizedek met Abraham, the tithe Abraham gave to Melchizedek was a gesture that anticipated the subordination of Levi and the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood like Melchizedek’s that would be inaugurated at God’s appointed time.

Lane, William L.. Hebrews 1-8, Volume 47A (Word Biblical Commentary)

 

[tribesman]

All churches who practice tithing are wealthy. Those who do not often struggle financially.

If tithing is "not commanded" in the NT era, it certainly seem to have some positive effect. I guess that effect is not against God's law.