Sabbath rest, tithes and such

[ABlessedAnomaly]

... to be fair, the vast majority of WOF hold to the tithe as the 10%, very ridgidly. I am not one of those.

Nor am I. Although I do think the word 'tithe' means what it means, and that is "a tenth."

While I do look at the tithe as still being in effect in the New Testament, (Hebrews itself says that Christ is still receiving tithes);

Where does Hebrews say this? I find it said of Melchizedek here:

Hebrews 7:8 (Amplified)
Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
​

And since Mel is not Jesus but a shadow of Jesus (as Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek) we can't have that confusion. (Copeland goes as far as to state that ancient Jewish writings identify Melchizedek as Shem, but that jury is still out.)

Much like the sabbath is still in effect in the New Testament, only every day is the sabbath, because the writer of Hebrews said that he who has believed has entered into rest;

And finally, the word sabbath. It most certainly is a day of rest. In Hebrew it means rest (or intermission). It is the Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week.

What you mention here is the sabbath rest. We are to enter into "the rest." Which rest? The sabbath rest. It is specifically the rest when our work is done. God rested on the seventh day (Heb 4:4). Likewise we, who believe, are to enter into His rest (Heb 4:3). We are to labor to enter into that rest (Heb 4:11).

The point being that the sabbath is still one day, it hasn't changed (nor has the tithe). It is the picture of what we are to achieve: the rest. Ours will be complete and not just one day, but always. (Similarly, the tithe is a picture of what we should obtain: it was 1/10 of the whole of giving that we should enjoy.)

You know me...picky, picky, picky. Ok...your turn.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Nor am I. Although I do think the word 'tithe' means what it means, and that is "a tenth."


Where does Hebrews say this? I find it said of Melchizedek here:

Hebrews 7:8 (Amplified)
Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
​

And since Mel is not Jesus but a shadow of Jesus (as Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek) we can't have that confusion. (Copeland goes as far as to state that ancient Jewish writings identify Melchizedek as Shem, but that jury is still out.)

Interesting. I guess I never read that verse out of the Amplified Bible. I have always inferred that in the KJV to refer to Jesus:

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
-Hebrews 7:8 KJV

Of course, the [] in the Amplified indicate that it is added by the translators for clarities sake, and is not in the original. This would be a call made by the translators.

The first problem I have with this interpretation is that in the KJV the word receiveth is present tense. In other words, the writer is not referring to something that had happened in the past, but something that is ocurring now, in the present. Even in the Amplified version, I notice that they put the act of receiving the tithe in the present tense by saying they are received. Since both translations use the present tense, I assume that it is so in the Greek. Is Melchisideck still receiving tithes today in heaven? I think not. But Jesus could be.

The second point I would make is that the phrase, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth is a phrase that would be immediately familiar to all first century christians as referring to Jesus. We dont think that way so much today, because we are 2000 years removed from the resurrection, but at that time, the witnesses to His resurrection were still alive. This would have been both a common understanding as well as a common saying among believers, that it was witnessed that Jesus lives. If itis referring to Melchisidek, then who witnessed that he lives? I see no such witness in the scriptures, other that the writer of Hebrews himself, in that same passage. That would mean that the writer is saying that it is witnessed that Melchisidek lives, by myself. But if so, that wounln't even be a true witness, but rather a revelation that he received from God.

And finally, the word sabbath. It most certainly is a day of rest. In Hebrew it means rest (or intermission). It is the Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week.

What you mention here is the sabbath rest. We are to enter into "the rest." Which rest? The sabbath rest. It is specifically the rest when our work is done. God rested on the seventh day (Heb 4:4). Likewise we, who believe, are to enter into His rest (Heb 4:3). We are to labor to enter into that rest (Heb 4:11).

The point being that the sabbath is still one day, it hasn't changed (nor has the tithe). It is the picture of what we are to achieve: the rest. Ours will be complete and not just one day, but always. (Similarly, the tithe is a picture of what we should obtain: it was 1/10 of the whole of giving that we should enjoy.)

You know me...picky, picky, picky. Ok...your turn.

Agreed. But the whole argument in Hebrews 4 is that we enter into the seventh day, the day of rest, also referred to there as the rest of the promised land, by believing the Word of God. Thus the seventh day can be every day for the believer. Following the same argument, the tenth of the spoils can be all of the spoils for the believer.

Peace...

 

[pk4yahweh]

Im glad you guys are having this discussion - I was interested as well but didn't want to side track Donnas questions. Hope you dont mind if I interject?

Both of you have mentioned not believing the tithe as a strict 10%. Although I can understand (and even agree) with the NT desire to get to what is deeper than the Law (such as the heart) of a matter - it still leaves how that is played out in practicum.

Yes - in reality ALL of our increase belongs to the Lord... and He gives us the ability to generate that increase. But - we dont go around encouraging people to give ALL of their income. (That would start us toward culthood pretty quickly). So what is the right way in your opinion?

 

[dkbwarrior]

Im glad you guys are having this discussion - I was interested as well but didn't want to side track Donnas questions. Hope you dont mind if I interject?

Both of you have mentioned not believing the tithe as a strict 10%. Although I can understand (and even agree) with the NT desire to get to what is deeper than the Law (such as the heart) of a matter - it still leaves how that is played out in practicum.

Yes - in reality ALL of our increase belongs to the Lord... and He gives us the ability to generate that increase. But - we dont go around encouraging people to give ALL of their income. (That would start us toward culthood pretty quickly). So what is the right way in your opinion?

Well, I guess that is where practicality sometimes comes head to head with theory. Even after saying all that I said, I still give 10% to my local church. But I don't do this as a means to fulfil an obligation to God. Rather, I do it as an act of spiritual discipline, to keep under my flesh, much like physical excercise. I use the 10% as a guide to measure myself by, to ensure that I am not taking advantage of my liberty. Kind of like believing in revelation by the Spirit, but using the scripture to measure it by.

I also don't talk about it much because I wouldn't want anyone at the church to think that I am undermining my pastor (who has an orthodox view of the tithe) nor do I want to argue over the motives for something when the effect is the same. After all, they give 10%, and I give 10%, so the outcome is the same. I guess the real effect for me is personal. As this frees me from feeling manipulated, condemned, or obligated. I am free to give or not to give, and I want to give. But I wouldn't feel condemned if I didn't.

Does that make any sense to you?

Peace...

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Im glad you guys are having this discussion - I was interested as well but didn't want to side track Donnas questions. Hope you dont mind if I interject?

Not at all...interject away.

Both of you have mentioned not believing the tithe as a strict 10%. Although I can understand (and even agree) with the NT desire to get to what is deeper than the Law (such as the heart) of a matter - it still leaves how that is played out in practicum.

Before this thought process goes too far I have to slow the parade down a bit and remind all: we don't create our doctrines upon practical application, but rather on scripture. My belief in giving unto the Lord and His work is biblical and the teaching of 10% (as a rule) is OT law. That is where I ground my belief in this.

Now allowing the practical thought process to come out for dicussion: the practicality of it is in helping with true need. This goes hand in hand with a minister who overextends and is not a good steward with the money entrusted: this person does not need to be given more for he wasn't trustworthy with the little. We don't give to the "poor" who have sqandered their allowance, but to the true poor who have been hit with hard times through job loss or disaster. The yardstick for this would be summed up in 2 Cor 9: give with a happy heart, not grudgingly or of necessity. And we give what we purpose in our heart, which is led by the Spirit of God. If He asks for 100% then I'll give it. But He knows what I should do, and what responsibilities I have; on the flip side I must not burden myself with such debt that I have tied up all my resources and made myself good for nothing (financially or otherwise). And finally, we must remember that if we are faithful, God will give back, pressed down, shaken together and running over. We will never lack.

Yes - in reality ALL of our increase belongs to the Lord... and He gives us the ability to generate that increase. But - we dont go around encouraging people to give ALL of their income. (That would start us toward culthood pretty quickly). So what is the right way in your opinion?

In this, God knows what you can and will handle for His kingdom. You give as you purpose in your heart. You should know what you are going to give before ever stepping foot into a sancuary or an evangelical meeting. If they have a special need and you know that you have the extra, then pray about it; if you know that you don't and your money is earmarked for expenses that you already have: then don't. God wants a good steward, not a fool. He will provide what you are to give BEFORE you give it. If you are faithful, then you will be increased; if you are not, then what you have will fall away from you.

Remember, He gives seed to the sower. The farmer cannot harvest the crop BEFORE he sows the seed; and God gives the seed to the sower. God gives the seed; we sow some; we eat some. We harvest. Now we have more seed. If we sowed properly, we have more than enough seed. We sow some; we eat some. God continues to bless. And if we eat too much, we don't have enough to sow; then the harvest is small. Not enough to sow and eat next time. To whom much is given, much will be required. To the good and profitable servent more is given; to the bad and unprofitable servant, what he has will be taken from him.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Interesting. I guess I never read that verse out of the Amplified Bible. I have always inferred that in the KJV to refer to Jesus:

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
-Hebrews 7:8 KJV

yes, but we need to read what is written not what we want it to say. This verse and the preceding verses do not mention Jesus. Only the shadow is being shown.

Of course, the [] in the Amplified indicate that it is added by the translators for clarities sake, and is not in the original. This would be a call made by the translators.

This is true, and translators do fall on various sides of theology. But we can't throw the baby out with the bath water either. Much can be learned by reading various commentaries. Also by reading various translations as well; and in many Melchezidek is clearly stated.

The first problem I have with this interpretation is that in the KJV the word receiveth is present tense. In other words, the writer is not referring to something that had happened in the past, but something that is ocurring now, in the present. Even in the Amplified version, I notice that they put the act of receiving the tithe in the present tense by saying they are received. Since both translations use the present tense, I assume that it is so in the Greek. Is Melchisideck still receiving tithes today in heaven? I think not. But Jesus could be.

I understand this line of thinking. But to apply it, you must apply it consistently. So back up to the first part of the verse as well:

Heb 7:8
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
​

The root word here for receive is lambanō but the actual word used in this verse is lambanousin. It is used twice in scripture, here in Heb 7:8 and in Rev 17:12 (...ten kings, which have received no kingdom yet. Yes, this is in the present tense in the Greek (and it is in the indicative mood, 3rd person, active and plural). The indicative mood, simply meaning that that it is an unqualified statement or assertion.

Further, the part you quote is implied: "receiveth them" is added by the translators and the tense thus will agree with the implied verb that is carried over (receive). What is being said is that "men that die" receive tithes here (in the temple currently); but there (Gen 14, Melchezidek) he (Mel) receiveth them (added for clarity) ... witnessed that he liveth (Mel does not have a recorded death in scripture).

Now this concept of Melchezidek not having a recorded death is very important, as he is the shadow of Christ and Jesus' eternal priesthood is what chapter 7 is all about (hint hint -- it is not about tithing). The eternal-ness of Jesus' priesthood is being exemplified here. It is being brought out through the shadow of Melchezidek, the High Priest.

The second point I would make is that the phrase, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth is a phrase that would be immediately familiar to all first century christians as referring to Jesus.

You are eisegeting here. Scripture does not make reference to the commonality of this phrase and its meaning. In fact, the context that this phrase is in clearly is talking about Melchezidek (and as Paul elsewhere points out, his death is never recorded...thus his ministry of High Priest continues and is not shown to have died/stopped).

We dont think that way so much today, because we are 2000 years removed from the resurrection, but at that time, the witnesses to His resurrection were still alive. This would have been both a common understanding as well as a common saying among believers, that it was witnessed that Jesus lives. If itis referring to Melchisidek, then who witnessed that he lives?

Paul covers this in verse 3. There is no lineage, no geneology and no record of his death; his priesthood continues forever. He is the shadow for Jesus, our High Priest.

I see no such witness in the scriptures, other that the writer of Hebrews himself, in that same passage. That would mean that the writer is saying that it is witnessed that Melchisidek lives, by myself. But if so, that wounln't even be a true witness, but rather a revelation that he received from God.

No, you are presupposing here. Paul covers Mel's continuing ministry as I've shown.

Agreed. But the whole argument in Hebrews 4 is that we enter into the seventh day, the day of rest, also referred to there as the rest of the promised land, by believing the Word of God. Thus the seventh day can be every day for the believer. Following the same argument, the tenth of the spoils can be all of the spoils for the believer.

But remember that there is a diffence between the Sabbath (day) and the Sabbath Rest (emphasize the rest -- what type? sabbath rest). In other words: the Sabbath day is the picture or shadow of the rest that we will enter and live continually and eternally. (But also remember that we are still "laboring" to enter His rest (Heb 4:11)).

 

[donnamabob]

Im glad you guys are having this discussion - I was interested as well but didn't want to side track Donnas questions.

Thanks

But - we dont go around encouraging people to give ALL of their income. (That would start us toward culthood pretty quickly).

This made me think of Acts 2:44-45 "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."

 

[pk4yahweh]

I'm going to respond in general to the concept that is being discussed here - instead of pulling out quotes. If I'm misinterpreting the concept - please forgive me and set me straight!

If I'm understanding correctly - you both are saying that while you do adhere to the strict 10% line of tithing - you really only do that in support of your pastor or to be supportive in general.

I guess I would be considered one who is an orthodox tither (although I have never considered myself orthodox anything!)

I see the 10% as a guideline - but for the minimum. Jesus made it quite clear that He didnt do away with any of the OT Laws... He upgraded them. For instance - He told us that when you hate it is a form of breaking the commandment for not to murder. Does that mean we just focus on not hating and justify murder? - Of course not! Jesus took the basic outlines of the Law and drove them deeper - But that doesn't discontinue the Law itself.

In the discussion of the Sabbath - Jesus didn't do away with the Sabbath Day - He upgraded it to include the concept of Resting and not burning myself out in pursuit of everything else beyond the Lord. We are told in Hebrews not to neglect the gathering together - so obviously the Sabbath isn't totally ignored - it is actually expanded so to speak.

For tithing - since the word means "tenth" then it is clear that is what is meant. If we start nitpicking and insert our own interpretations into the concept then we open up plenty of room for justification on our own reasoning. The tithe in the NT was upgraded from the 10% law int he OT to giving what the Lord lays on your heart to give. The difference is that I see this as giving BEYOND my 10% tithe. Now that the Holy Spirit is involved in a personal way - He won't "lay something on my heart" which downgrades the previous commitment to the Lord. 10% is still 10% - 5% is NOT a tithe. The NT believer is called to tithe 10% - and then free to give beyond that willingly, as the Lord lays it on their heart.

Again - we are speaking of concept here. There isn't much detail in the Word for this. I think we can all agree that Jesus didn't do away with these things. (That is a pretty lame excuse people use who do not want to trust God with their money through the tithe - doesn't hold water).


(Sorry if this sounds like a ramble - I'm thinking out loud here).

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

The overall "flavor" or concept you speak here I agree with. But your details confuse me. Let me elaborate:

If I'm understanding correctly - you both are saying that while you do adhere to the strict 10% line of tithing - you really only do that in support of your pastor or to be supportive in general.

I'm not saying that. I do not tithe nor do I "10%" anything about my giving....but I do give, as I purpose in my heart, not grudgingly, but with cheer and joy.

And I want to emphasize that if I gave a 10% tithe, then I am tithing. If I give 11%, I am not tithing. That is not a tenth. And if a herdsman in the OT gave 2 of every 10 animals that passed under the rod would the Lord have been pleased? He doesn't want the 2nd animal; He wants obedience. Tithe is a tenth -- nothing more, nothing less.

I see the 10% as a guideline - but for the minimum.

You say later in your post: [If we] "insert our own interpretations into the concept then we open up plenty of room for justification on our own reasoning." PK, when you say "I see..." you have "insert[ed] [y]our own..."

The tithe is 10%. It is not a guideline. (And it is not binding under the New Covenant.)

Jesus made it quite clear that He didnt do away with any of the OT Laws... He upgraded them. For instance - He told us that when you hate it is a form of breaking the commandment for not to murder. Does that mean we just focus on not hating and justify murder? - Of course not! Jesus took the basic outlines of the Law and drove them deeper - But that doesn't discontinue the Law itself.

No, not upgraded.

The OT law was a specific way to do what God's will is. God wants us to give because we want to, out of a happy heart, because I detemine to give. OT tithing was the tutor to teach men how to do this. People have to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide before they can move on to algebra, which must happen before moving on to calculus. God doesn't want us to murder, but this commmandment is actually much, much more in our heart with a root in hatred. God wants us to not commit adultery, but what he really wants is that we don't lust after or unhealthily desire, envy or covet.

PK, the law was our tutor and we are no longer in need of a tutor (Gal 3:24-25). Not one jot nor one tittle will pass away from the law till all is fulfilled (Matt 5:18). Why? Because there are people still in need of the tutor. There is a race/religion who still considers themselves under this tutor.

The law was not something that has to be aborgated so that the New Covenant can come in, can be put in place. No. The New Covenant encompases the law, it is much greater, is it much more inclusive.

Now faith has come and we are no longer under a tutor (Gal 3:25)

In the discussion of the Sabbath - Jesus didn't do away with the Sabbath Day - He upgraded it to include the concept of Resting and not burning myself out in pursuit of everything else beyond the Lord. We are told in Hebrews not to neglect the gathering together - so obviously the Sabbath isn't totally ignored - it is actually expanded so to speak.

The Sabbath day was a picture of what our rest in God should be. True rest -- we work at it no longer. The picture (the day) become the reality (our eternal existence).

For tithing...
10% is still 10% - 5% is NOT a tithe. The NT believer is called to tithe 10% - and then free to give beyond that willingly, as the Lord lays it on their heart.

Absolutely....so quit calling it a tithe. It is giving, God's way.

I think we can all agree that Jesus didn't do away with these things. (That is a pretty lame excuse people use who do not want to trust God with their money through the tithe - doesn't hold water).

Yes, these things were not done away with; but we are no longer under the law of these things -- we are in a better covenant:

Hebrews 8:6b, 10b, 13
6b a better covenant, which was established on better promises

10b I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
​

 

[pk4yahweh]

Sorry Bob, but I just don't see how the truths that you mention do away with what I said at all.

Stating that the Law was our tutor and was meant to reveal to men their sin does not also show that the details of that Law are to be ignored.


Matt 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." - Jesus



Obviously Jesus wasn't changing it from a "tithe" to "giving". He clearly states that we should continue to do this - but also examine our hearts to get to the meat of the matter. Tithe your 10% - and then give more as the Lord leads you with a cheerful heart.

That isn't reading or interpreting into it - it is just taking Jesus at His word.

Also - the "better covenant" is better because now everyone has access to it through the shed blood of Jesus - not simply through the obedience of the Law. It isn't tossing out that obedience in the name of grace.

Obedience to the Law cannot save us - but it is still the best way to live and the heart beneath it is vital to the letter.


I will try to go into more detail about this tomorrow...

 

[in1]

The Sabbath is a two way street, we Rest because He Rested even as He is that Rest, anything less than this is merchandise. Jacob worked seven years for Rachel, when He woke up the next moring what He got for his work was the weariness of flesh. He worked yet another seven years but this time he recieved the promise, he worked out his salvation with fear and trembling knowing that it was God in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

 

[pdudgeon]

Im glad you guys are having this discussion - I was interested as well but didn't want to side track Donnas questions. Hope you dont mind if I interject?

Both of you have mentioned not believing the tithe as a strict 10%. Although I can understand (and even agree) with the NT desire to get to what is deeper than the Law (such as the heart) of a matter - it still leaves how that is played out in practicum.

Yes - in reality ALL of our increase belongs to the Lord... and He gives us the ability to generate that increase. But - we dont go around encouraging people to give ALL of their income. (That would start us toward culthood pretty quickly). So what is the right way in your opinion?

personally I think it takes a lifetime of study to understand how much God gave when He gave His son. For me the tenth is much easier to understand.
I realize that my income and how it is figured is different from most folks, and this is something that i haven't talked about before. Not that i couldn't but i figure that if it took me most of my life to understand it, it might not be so easy for others to get their heads around.

I identify with the widdow who put her two mites into the offering when she was only required to offer a tenth.

Being a widdow maybe she had children who supported her, or maybe she lived in the sanctuary as a widdow of the church. But she responded to the requirement of the law to tithe with the love in her heart. She responded to a need in the same way that God did. Out of love.

I am not a widdow. and yet of all the money that comes into my house, 1% is because i am here. and yet 10 % goes out to God's ministry, and we are blessed. and i look for more ways to support God's ministry in the world, and praise God, He shows me.

as i say it took me a lifetime to get here, but it began with a fervent desire that God would give me the chance and keep on giving me the chance to bless Him back for all that He's done for me. He has increased my faith as He has increased our income.
We are not wealthy by the standards of the world, but we are definitely blessed beyond what i could have possibly imagined when i first prayed and asked God to give me a chance to give.

 

[dkbwarrior]

This is going to be an interesting discussion. I will add more also ABM, PK, and Pam, as soon as I have the time.

Peace...

 

[soyunagile7980]

There are many ways to interpret the vernacular of the Bible. Often, it needs an historical view. The Sabbath may very well be a Wednesday for those who work weekends. As long as it represents one day out of seven, it is the Sabbath and is to be consecrated to "rest". However, how that rest is displayed is entirely up to the believer. It could be sitting in front of the television watching the sports network or baking goodies that she dreamed about at the office. As for the tithe, why believe that a tithe is exclusively "money" ? What about people who have no money (Christians in rural Africa or Brasil)? Could it not represent a tenth of our time, devotion or talent which were equally given by God? What about doing something for someone in need or ministering to the poor in spirit? Our own hearts will tell us whether or not we are tithing appropriately, not our pastor or fellow Christian. Thanks for listening.

 

[in1]

Each creative day is an evening and a morning, the seventh day has no evening just like the new earth of revelation has no sea's, like James said, For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. Jesus as Passover accomplished our Rest/righteousness once and for all. In Isaiah it says, But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. The knowledge of this Rest will fill our earth, as well as the earth as the waters of baptism/identification cover this sea that is between our ears.

... for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Sorry Bob, but I just don't see how the truths that you mention do away with what I said at all.

oh no, not trying to "do away" with what you said -- as I said in my opening paragraph, I agree with you in concept.

Stating that the Law was our tutor and was meant to reveal to men their sin does not also show that the details of that Law are to be ignored.

Nor did I say the Law should be ignored, but rather that the Law is a part of what the whole Principle of God is. The principle of the Law moves forward, for God does not change. But the OT people were not ready to live in faith under God's full Grace, for they did not have Christ's sacrifice. So God gave man a tutor to teach the principle in a very specific manner. The Law is but one specific sliver of a greater principle.

So as Paul says: we are not under the Law any longer -- but the Law did not go away, for the principles of the Law are still intact. And the Law itself is still intact for any who put themselves under it.

Matt 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." - Jesus

"Woe....scribes and Pharisees" Um -- Jews. Under the Law. Christ's sacrifice had not happened yet. So those in Jesus day "ought to have done" the Law. They were still under it.

Obviously Jesus wasn't changing it from a "tithe" to "giving". He clearly states that we should continue to do this - but also examine our hearts to get to the meat of the matter. Tithe your 10% - and then give more as the Lord leads you with a cheerful heart.

Well, I agree that a change was not necessary, but the tithe is simply a tutor, a part, a manner in which to understand the whole (giving). By teaching man how to give (in the instance of the tithe) God was teaching them how to orient their hearts in the proper direction.

Instead of tithe 10% (OT lawful acts) we should instead do as was inspired in the New Covenant: give, give joyfully, give from your heart, give because you want to not because some Law says some percentage. Because of tithe teaching today there are many who give out of obligation (and I know there are those who tithe willfully and joyfully too). I know many who give because they have to. I also have known a couple who did not give more because they were only supposed to give 10%.

That isn't reading or interpreting into it - it is just taking Jesus at His word.

If you mean Jesus while here as a man then I still claim that He never taught the church to tithe. He did teach us to give and to give all our ourselves and all of our possessions. And all is not a tithe (tenth).

Also - the "better covenant" is better because now everyone has access to it through the shed blood of Jesus - not simply through the obedience of the Law. It isn't tossing out that obedience in the name of grace.

Agreed. And again I'm not promoting a tossing out of anything. But I am also saying that it is not the letter of the Law that we are to follow: certainly you know that Paul told us that we are not under the Law any longer. We are under the principles, and the Law was but a view of the whole of the principles of God.

Obedience to the Law cannot save us - but it is still the best way to live and the heart beneath it is vital to the letter.

I agree that the Law cannot save us. It is not the best way to live, for Paul tell us we are freed from the Law, we are not under the Law any longer. We live to a higher standard than the Law. The best way to live is much, much greater than what the Law could ever give or teach us any longer. We have Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit.

We have More!

(And you were here months ago, were you not, for my comparison of the tithe to circumcision? My real concern, which I'm still in study over, is that holding onto the Law may be more detrimental than we are taught today.)

 

[pk4yahweh]

(And you were here months ago, were you not, for my comparison of the tithe to circumcision? My real concern, which I'm still in study over, is that holding onto the Law may be more detrimental than we are taught today.)

You have peaked my curiosity on this subject. I must confess that I never thought of it from this perspective before. I don't remember the discussion you referenced above - but I'm going to look for it. I have spent the afternoon re-reading this stuff and it definitely has me thinking... (thanks Bob! ).


You must also realize that usually people who adhere to the line of thinking that you are describing are non-WOF. That always makes me pause a bit.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

You have peaked my curiosity on this subject. I must confess that I never thought of it from this perspective before. I don't remember the discussion you referenced above - but I'm going to look for it. I have spent the afternoon re-reading this stuff and it definitely has me thinking... (thanks Bob! ).

If you can't find it, let me know.

You must also realize that usually people who adhere to the line of thinking that you are describing are non-WOF. That always makes me pause a bit.

I'm just not a blind follower of people, but a follower of the Word.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if much of the discussions on "tithe vs no tithe" can at times be misplaced due to missing the central focus of whether or not we're really loving the neighbors we're giving to in the first place--and if we truly are looking out for them or seeking to see their giving within an economy of love, would the amount really matter as much as the act behind it? Just a thought...

Great thread, ABM

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if much of the discussions on "tithe vs no tithe" can at times be misplaced due to missing the central focus of whether or not we're really loving the neighbors we're giving to in the first place--and if we truly are looking out for them or seeking to see their giving within an economy of love, would the amount really matter as much as the act behind it? Just a thought...

Great thread, ABM

This is another great aspect to the giving question. To me not so much whether one calls it a tithe or not.

Many people think that when they give in church that it goes solely for the pastor's salary and the lights. In some churches, perhaps this is true. It is why some people have given up on giving in church, and attempt instead to give directly to what they perceive as need -- whether that be charities or giving directly to a family in need.