Tithing, yes or no? Would you give to God if "tithe" wasn't

[returntosender]

Ceremonial laws are necessary to keep by guarding with our new hearts. Only Christ in the Son of man could keep them perfectly (not as I will but as you father) was the reply.

They as shadows just don't provide substance. A tithe is a tenth . Ten, hundred and thousands in multiples are used in parables to represent all that is in view . He desires we give 100% . of the seed (spiritual Christ) calling the tithe a increase of His seed. . . again as in all we are freely given .

In that way he the 100% must increase as we decrease.

Deuteronomy 14:22-23 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.

But again, this is from the OT and we are not under the law. Others argument is that Jesus didn't bring it in when he came in the NT so it is no longer active.
For me and most of the posters here is that tithing now comes from the heart of the believer, their love for God. Not to limit the love others have for God. Its voluntary, its what they want to do without a scripture.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

But again, this is from the OT and we are not under the law. Others argument is that Jesus didn't bring it in when he came in the NT so it is no longer active.
For me and most of the posters here is that tithing now comes from the heart of the believer, their love for God. Not to limit the love for God of others. Its voluntary, its what they want to do without a scripture.

God loves a generous giver.

 

[garee]

But again, this is from the OT and we are not under the law. Others argument is that Jesus didn't bring it in when he came in the NT so it is no longer active.
For me and most of the posters here is that tithing now comes from the heart of the believer, their love for God. Not to limit the love for God of others. Its voluntary, its what they want to do without a scripture.

It would seem that two of the ceremonial laws as shadows (powerless) where transferred to the new testament .Under the Nazarene denomination or called the way. The father named them Christian the first ones belonging to that sect or the many that were there . .

One new was added to the old fast ceremony now that the reformation came . The new testament ordinance, 1 Corinthians 11. The brining into ceremonies or shadows to the world adding of Jewish woman and bringing in gentiles, both men and woman .The walls that separated them from participating came down restoring the government of God (peace) to the time period of Judges "no outward fleshly representative of God" who is not a man. It was restored to before the abomination of desolation (Kings in Israel ) The pagan foundation .When the veil was rent the walls came tumbling down.

The hair or head covering for the woman and the unconverted head or hair of the man together both of those shadows the breaking of bread and drinking the blood of grapes is used to represent manna in the wilderness And hair covered or un-covered Nazarene vow as a shadow worked together to indicate the consummations of the wedding .The Lords supper the fulfilment of all shadows to include the Sabbath.

The introduction to a new priests as a kingdom of priests now made up of all the nations of the world. It survived the first century reformation

Water can be used to show another a person or group a person has a desire to plant the gospel seed. It is also a shadow and does not provide power to believe.

 

[Xarto]

I answered No (with a but)

As a Catholic (for reference, in Ireland) we are not required to tithe, which is 10% (just couldn't afford it), there is also a historical dimension to it. Now we have two collections on a Sunday the first (forget what it's called) is for the Parish and the second is called the Share collection is for the Diocese and is as its name suggests shared out amongst the poorer parishes.

While we don't have tithing we should be supporting the Church by giving as much as we can to support the Priests, the utilities etc and the Diocese.

 

[qwaslkpotuyjsn]

Abram NEVER PAID/TITHED 10% of his personal items. No cattle, oil, wine, corn, wheat & NO MONEY! Only booty from the Kings he conquered while retrieving his kidnapped nephew Lot.

NT giving shouldn't be based on a mandatory tithe.

I'm not fighting for a mandatory rule (if you read overall post). I brought up Hebrews 7 because the NT calls this Abraham incident as a type of paying tithes. This incident might not be everything 'tithes' came to be known, but I didn't invent the comparison, the NT did, as the fundamental forerunner to the concept, to one greater than a Levite. And it's in that light that it was discussed, not as a mandatory argument passage. It is a going deeper passage more than anything.

Once Abraham had conquered and got the booty, that was his newly acquired 'personal items'. What he did with the remaining [~90%] was certainly up to him. He was only asked for the persons back, not the goods, and thus wasn't mandatory nor pressured for him to give the goods back, as recognised as fairly attained by his 'work' of battle. The law also recognised a type of fairness in the taking of the booty - Deut 20:14

 

[BrotherJJ]

I'm not fighting for a mandatory rule (if you read overall post). I brought up Hebrews 7 because the NT calls this Abraham incident as a type of paying tithes. This incident might not be everything 'tithes' came to be known, but I didn't invent the comparison, the NT did, as the fundamental forerunner to the concept, to one greater than a Levite. And it's in that light that it was discussed, not as a mandatory argument passage. It is a going deeper passage more than anything.

Once Abraham had conquered and got the booty, that was his newly acquired 'personal items'. What he did with the remaining [~90%] was certainly up to him. He was only asked for the persons back, not the goods, and thus wasn't mandatory nor pressured for him to give the goods back, as recognised as fairly attained by his 'work' of battle. The law also recognised a type of fairness in the taking of the booty - Deut 20:14

1st: The original OP I posted to was: Tithing YES or NO.

2ndly: You posted: Quote: "The biggest case in the NT is Hebrews 7" end quote.

I must say, it did look to me like your reply was making a case for tithing.

3rdly: To be clear, I never claimed or even suggested, you were fighting about anything.

On countless occasions I've watched people use Heb 7 to put NT Christians under the yoke of Mosaic laws.

I pointed out in one threat that mandatory Mosaic law tithes were more like 23% & only required by land owners. I also pointed out the Heb 7:4 verse was a one time event.

Same chapter:

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

A few times you alluded to the NT. The OT Mosaic Levitical priesthood order, where tithe was mandatory, has been replaced.

In posts 45 & 60 I challenged all NT believers to be generous, sacrificial, cheerful giver's! Best wishes, JJ

 

[RDKirk]

It's not "in" the NT - Jesus mentioned it on one occasion, when talking to Pharisees who rejected the Messiah and kept their law.

Neither Jesus nor the early church taught that Gentile converts had to tithe - the NT example is that believers gave everything, Acts of the Apostles 2:45, and Paul said that people should give as they have decided and not under compulsion, 2 Corinthians 9:7.

If someone is arguing that tithing is taught in the Bible and therefore should be obeyed, then they should obey it as it is taught.
That means taking 10% of their crops to Jerusalem, or another place where the Lord has put his name, and eating it there, in the presence of the Lord. Every 3 years, all the tithes from that year's produce should be stored, so that the Levites, who have no allotments, and the poor, and foreigners, may also eat it, Deuteronomy 14:22-29.
The only time that money should be involved is if 10% of your crops is much too heavy for you to carry to Jerusalem. Then, you can sell that 10%, carry the money to Jerusalem, buy food with that money and eat that food, Deuteronomy 14:24-26.

But I have never seen this taught.
Tithing, these days, is "you must give 10% of your income to the church" - usually to maintain buildings and pay wages - "because the Bible teaches tithing."

The Bible does not say that, and, imo, it is incorrect to teach that giving 10% of your wages is the same as OT tithing.
The NT teaching is that everything we have comes from the Lord and we should give as he directs us to give.

Repeated for emphasis.

God explicitly defined what the tithe means. It does not matter at all what earlier patriarchs might have been doing. Once God defined it, that's what it is and how it must be done until God Himself redefines it...which He did not.

The communal concept of resource management that the New Testament amply describes for the Body of Christ is not "tithing." Remember that during the entire time the gospels, Acts, and epistles were being written, Mosaic tithing was still happening in Jerusalem. The Mosaic Law was still being followed by Jews. If the apostles had intended that Christians "tithe" they would have referenced the Mosaic Law, just as it was discussed with regard to circumcision and diet.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not fighting for a mandatory rule (if you read overall post). I brought up Hebrews 7 because the NT calls this Abraham incident as a type of paying tithes. This incident might not be everything 'tithes' came to be known, but I didn't invent the comparison, the NT did, as the fundamental forerunner to the concept, to one greater than a Levite. And it's in that light that it was discussed, not as a mandatory argument passage. It is a going deeper passage more than anything.

Once Abraham had conquered and got the booty, that was his newly acquired 'personal items'. What he did with the remaining [~90%] was certainly up to him. He was only asked for the persons back, not the goods, and thus wasn't mandatory nor pressured for him to give the goods back, as recognised as fairly attained by his 'work' of battle. The law also recognised a type of fairness in the taking of the booty - Deut 20:14

Abraham tithed according the law of the land at that time, which was the Law of Hammurabi. Under that law, the owner of the land was owed 10% of what was reaped from that land.

But it's irrelevant what Abraham did. God explicitly defined the tithe, and His definition overrides whatever was done by the patriarchs of the past. For instance, under the Mosaic Law, a man cannot marry two sisters as Jacob did. The same is true of the tithe...Jacob's "tithe" as well as Abraham's are overridden by the Mosaic Law.

 

[garee]

I'm not fighting for a mandatory rule (if you read overall post). I brought up Hebrews 7 because the NT calls this Abraham incident as a type of paying tithes. This incident might not be everything 'tithes' came to be known, but I didn't invent the comparison, the NT did, as the fundamental forerunner to the concept, to one greater than a Levite. And it's in that light that it was discussed, not as a mandatory argument passage. It is a going deeper passage more than anything.

Once Abraham had conquered and got the booty, that was his newly acquired 'personal items'. What he did with the remaining [~90%] was certainly up to him. He was only asked for the persons back, not the goods, and thus wasn't mandatory nor pressured for him to give the goods back, as recognised as fairly attained by his 'work' of battle. The law also recognised a type of fairness in the taking of the booty - Deut 20:14

It would appear that tithe which is simply ten does have a deeper meaning . God desires we give him 100% ten represent a part of the whole .It is set aside to be shared with those who have none or less on the day of rest the true fast .

Five represents redemption. it would seem to indicate a 15 % tithe.

Leviticus 27:31
And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

ten (deca or tithe )is used a a metaphor in various parables that way throughout the bible . Eighteen seems to be used like the word tithe a portion of the whole

Luke 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

 

[Strong in Him]

ten (deca or tithe )is used a a metaphor in various parables that way throughout the bible . Eighteen seems to be used like the word tithe a portion of the whole

Luke 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

??
A tower collapsed in Siloam killing 18 people, and a woman had been ill for 18 years.
Are you suggesting there is some special connection between these two passages?

 

[Unqualified]

Don’t love your money.

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

Gods word also says things like opening up the heavens, give and it will be given, etc; I tithed and gave more regularly for quite some time and yet I haven’t received any such blessings. In fact my wife and I can’t even afford our own place, cars, etc... If I would have saved all of the money I’ve given over the years back when things were going well we would be ok now.