Atheists ask many questions in an effort to mislead people too. Hebrews talks about the reason for the law.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Tithing For Today?
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
Wasn't Abraham commanded to circumcise? Before there was the law?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
There are several challenges here. Primarily, I suppose, there is the difference between "Covenant Theology" and "New Covenant Theology." I am much more "New Covenant" so I don't think the Old Testament Law is binding on us today. But, the Law is not irrelevant either.
Many people who hold to Covenant Theology (CT) always like to draw a three-part division of the Old Testament Law--Civil, Moral, and Ceremonial. Most CT people think that only the Ceremonial law is not binding--because Christ's once-for-all-believers sacrifice. The problem with the tripartite division of the Law is that Israel would have never understood the law to have any division in to the categories of Civil, Moral, and Ceremonial. Israel would have viewed the law in toto.
But, we have to understand the purpose of the Law...all of the Law as one monolithic thing--to show us what sin is. (Romans 3:20) So, through the Law we see the character of God and we see His Holiness and we see His Grace.
So, what I think you may be arguing for is a type of antinomianism--seeking to discount the law as now irrelevant. (Again, perhaps I've misunderstood your argument). While the Law is not binding, per se, on Believers, it is not irrelevant to Believers. Through study of the Law we can see God's character, His holiness, His grace, and we can see how good we have it because of Christ.
So, the Christian farmer who is not bound by the law and who doesn't give his fields a chance to rest will likely not incur God's wrath, it does him good to rest his fields because of how God designed the world.
Tithing, though, is a different issue.
Do Christians who do not tithe sin? In one sense yes and in one sense no. Does God require Christians to give? ABSOLUTELY! Matthew 6:2 says "When you give" not "if you give." Again, in the context (He was speaking to a Jewish audience) Jesus was likely talking about giving alms to help the poor, but this could only legally been given after tithes were given. So, Jesus is suggesting more than 10%.
But, the New Testament continuously talks in terms of giving as "required" and it talks about giving sacrificially. The New Testament treats giving similar to the Old Testament--the New Testament givers were to give to support the covenant community of believer (the local church) just as the Old Testament givers supported the community with their tithes (going to the Levites) and offerings.
But, 2 Corinthians 8:9 tell us that Christ, for our sake, became poor so that we (believers) might become rich. The principle involved here really answers the percentage question for us--Christ's sacrifice was not a "minimum" sacrifice, it was a super-maximum sacrifice. Therefore, with Christ as our example, we ought to give sacrificially as well and for most of us that means giving well above the 10% of the tithe.
Generally speaking, those making arguments against the understanding of the tithe for Believers seem to be saying "how little can I get away with giving?" (I'm not saying that you are saying that). But, for the Christian--on whom God has lavished His grace--we ought to be asking "How much can I give?"
As a pastor, I'm not so much concerned how much certain people give; I'm concerned that they give. There are people in our small church who can afford to give well above 10% and they should give above 10%. There are those, however, that might have $600-$700 per month and that comes through public assistance. Is it proper for them not to give? Absolutely not. Now, for these folks, giving 2% may be a great sacrifice--and that is the root issue. We should be giving sacrificially just as Christ gave sacrificially for us.
EDITED IN: There's another issue I forgot to mention...What is the purpose of giving? For the Believer today it is to demonstrate one's faith that God will provide. God does not need our money (He owns everything anyway). Also, our money is not ours in that we don't own our money, we are merely stewards of God's money. We live on what God has provided us (and we are to do so thankfully and responsibly). But, the principle of the tithe in the Old Testament was to demonstrate one's faith that God would bring the last 90%. The tithe was to demonstrate one's faith in God. In the same manner, the New Testament Believer is to demonstrate their faith in God's provision by giving sacrificially (usually above the 10%) and trusting God to provide for our needs.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course there are loads of them because you do not understand what Jesus said. Seeing as how oyu are a pragmatist then answer the question, "How many were stoned?"
Tom Butler
New Member
The obvious answer is yes.
With regard to Abe's tithe to Mel, I've been mulling over some questions.
Was there a cultural precedent or tradition for this kind of tithe? Of course, we don't know?
Was this a spur-of-the-moment act on Abe's part? Don't know
Where did Abe come up with the ten per cent figure? Did it come from Mel himself? Don't know.
Is there a connection between Abe's tithe to Mel and the tithe later included in the Law? Maybe, maybe not.
Just askin'.
For some reason you misread the issue. I'm not talking about the NT, I'm talking about how they kept that law in the old testament. So the answer to how many were stoned was, "I have no idea". That's enough for me to point out that THAT law was no longer applicable to the church. Did Jesus abolish that command from the law? No, he completed it to bring all under the law to grace (let him who is without sin...).
I'd still like my christian farmer question answered any takers? The christian farmer is forbidden to harvest on and every 7th year, right?? I sometimes get the feeling that talking about "principles" (its not a command, it a principle) is as much a cheat as taking a verse out of context, or making one law a command while another there remains an exemption.
Darren
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
According to the Word of God, the tithe was indeed 10%, and that 10% was given to the Levites because they were not permitted to own property of their own. However, the third year tithe did not go to the Levites working at the Tabernacle, but rather to the Levites living in the city, the widows, the orphans, and any foreigner that might be visiting.
Something to ponder....
The tithe was eaten, both by the one receiving the tithe, and by the one tithing.
How come pastors that teach the congregation is supposed to tithe do not give part of the tithe back to the tither on the day that they tithe?
Something to ponder....
The tithe was eaten, both by the one receiving the tithe, and by the one tithing.
How come pastors that teach the congregation is supposed to tithe do not give part of the tithe back to the tither on the day that they tithe?
Similar things are done in America today.
Again I ask which law did Jesus abolish? The fact is that he fulfilled it.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
I myself do not tithe. Not all of God's people were required to tithe under the Law, only farmers and herders were required to tithe.
Israelites that were not farmers or herders; i.e., tentmakers, carpenters, brickmasons, fishermen, etc., none of these were required to tithe.
The tithe was not to be received of Israelites who were not farmers or herders, nor was it to be received of anyone who lived outside of the boundaries of national Israel.
Peter, at the Jerusalem council, told the religious leaders that the laws written within the Mosaic Law were not to be imposed upon the Gentile believers. The tithing law was within the Mosaic Law. Gentiles, therefore, are not required to tithe.
Many preachers and teachers teach that Malachi 3 proves that all should be tithing, but it does not. Malachi 3's rebuke was to the Levites, not to the congregation. And the tithe that was being withheld was food, not money.
God's tithe never consisted of money.
Israelites that were not farmers or herders; i.e., tentmakers, carpenters, brickmasons, fishermen, etc., none of these were required to tithe.
The tithe was not to be received of Israelites who were not farmers or herders, nor was it to be received of anyone who lived outside of the boundaries of national Israel.
Peter, at the Jerusalem council, told the religious leaders that the laws written within the Mosaic Law were not to be imposed upon the Gentile believers. The tithing law was within the Mosaic Law. Gentiles, therefore, are not required to tithe.
Many preachers and teachers teach that Malachi 3 proves that all should be tithing, but it does not. Malachi 3's rebuke was to the Levites, not to the congregation. And the tithe that was being withheld was food, not money.
God's tithe never consisted of money.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Jesus did indeed fulfill the Law. But, as Acts 15 points out, Gentile Believers were not to be put under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.
Look, I'm agreeing that Jesus fulfilled the law, I'm just saying the some commandments are no longer required to keep, the harvesting commandments being one example. Anyway I think this is rather beside the point, so I'll leave it there.
Darren
Exactly, that still did not do away with the law. Jesus was its fulfillment.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
But, when you get over into Hebrews 7, you find that there had to be a dis annulling of the law.
It appears that at some point after the crucifixion, the Law was canceled.... that is what dis-annulled means.
Since Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law then it was not done away with. It was fulfilled. According to Heb. 7:27-28 Jesus is the sacrifice once for all for all time.
Maybe I am missing something but in Heb. 7 I am unable to see a disannulment of anything.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Hebrews 7:18 (KJV) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Verse 28 reveals that the High Priests that were made under the Law had infirmities. Thank God for the High Priest Christ Jesus who heals all infirmities!
The same Greek word used for disannul is used in two verses in the NT.
Heb 7:18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
Heb 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Dude, you nailed it. I have been trying to inform people about this information for years and some simply refuse to forsake tradition.
The disannulling is of the carnal commandment of the Levitical priesthood, and by inclusion, the commandment of them to take agricultural tithes from Israelites.
Because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all time, there is no need for tithes. The tithes were required to sustain human priests with limited lifespans who had to be priests with a record of lineage.
Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek who was a priest without known priestly descent. The Levitical priests continued to receive tithes and they continued to offer sacrifices.
Abraham gave tithes of the spoils of battle to Melchizedek once, and Christ, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, gave Himself a sacrifice once.