To tithe or not to tithe
- Thread starter jbbaab44
- Start date
- Status
Very good
I have to more questions. If you don't mind?
1. Can we truely not withold anything from God????
2. How do we know how much of what( time, effort, money, sacrifice etc) to give???
Sincerely his
Cliff
Very good
I have to more questions. If you don't mind?
1. Can we truely not withold anything from God????
It is very difficult question. I figure I should not live laxualy like the rest of the world and not to have too much savings in the bank or insurances.
I don't have steady income but I do my best not to be materialistic and live humbly as much as I can. Our family goal is that we are learning to live as tight as we can and get used to be less and less materially.
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
Please explain how the Gentiles can have the land inheritance when at the time of the inheritance they were not in the family????? If we had or have a land inheritance where is it???? How can I tithe on the proceeds of land I don't know I have. Please show in scripture were the Gentile "land" inheritance is and were the tribe of Levi is in the "church" that I might tithe as I shouldTo have a Christian tithe as a Jew is to tax one for oranges when all they have are apples. Both are friuit but not the same fruit.
The inheritance that the Jews and Gentiles jointly inherit through faith in Jesus is eternal life and for that there is no tithe.
Sincerely his
Cliff
Do you think the land inheritance is given right now? It isn't. It won't be given until the Mashiach comes in his Kingdom and fulfills his promises to the patriarchs. I don't think I am stating clearly enough what the land promise is, and whom it is for. So here's the original promise (you can read the whole thing in Genesis 17).
This promise is for Abraham, and ALL his seed. Not some, but to ALL who are counted to be his seed (meaning those of faith, whether Jews or Gentiles, for even a faithless Jew is a son of the devil). Again, Gentiles are counted as the "seed of Abraham" if they have faith.
There's little room for doubt, you being the seed of Abraham through faith, will have a place in the inheritance. But is the inheritance now? No it isn't. The inheritance will be given when the Mashiach's kingdom is established, when the resurrection occurs. Then the land promised from each of the great rivers, will be given to those it is promised to. According to the promise, the faithful patriarchs WILL be resurrected (as they are counted among the faithful, seeing the fruit of HaMashiach even then), and given the land promised as a physical eternal posession.
This promise isn't limited to who was where at any time, but the promise for the seed is to all Abraham's seed (whoever is counted as seed), and all their generations. You, your faithful children, and their faithful grandchildren share in the inheritance, whether Jew or Gentile. (whichever "title" they may or may not possess)
The statuates of tithing are not for one tribe or another, but all of Israel as even seen in Abraham as scripture proclaims, "For he was yet in his father's loins when Melchizedek met him." referring to even Levi. There isn't the question of which branch you are from (as the wild olive branch is now a part of the olive tree), but of what people you are of. You are of Israel, and the tithe ordinance was for Israel. Gentiles don't tithe because they know not, the greatness of YHVH. As it is written:
Now "behold how great this one was", to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils;
It must be considered more carefully, "whom" you tithe to, and not "what" you tithe to.
(For references to the re-establishment of sacrifices according to the Levites as memorial, read more in Ezekiel and elsewhere.)
There is a reason why it isn't mentioned in every single book of the bible. The letters address disputes about issues that arrise in the church, that go against Christian teaching, action, and theology. Is the lack of writing addressing the churches concerning tithing a sign of univeral observance? It must be considered as there were many Torah Observant Jews coming to the faith at the same time as Lawless Gentiles (those ignorant in part or whole of Torah). Admititdly though, I smell too much of Marcion the Heretic and his hatred of Jews in many views of Modern Christians.
I'm sorry, I thought I was addressing a concern regarding Gentiles who come to faith and their eternal inheritance as citizens of Israel and as the seed of Abraham, not racial elitism (of which I am staunchly opposed).
(Are you?!)Shalom
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
I think when I said "racial elitism" and my dislike of it... I may not have gotten my idea across.
One of the main reasons why I do not mix well with the Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) is because of their elitism. When I say elitism, I mean like treating one person/group/agenda better than another. Racial elitism keeps me from a majority of Messianic congregations because they at times favor "Jewish born" people with a greater measure than the bretheren from the nations. It's sad, but overly obvious sometimes as "Gentile" guests have to pay to attend a special food service or banquet, yet "unsaved Jews" are allowed to eat or enjoy the festivities for free. Such people should be ashamed of themselves. But such a thing isn't unknown, even in the church as shown in Galatians concerning Paul rebuking Peter for the same issue (elitism).
I do not seperate "Jews" or "Gentiles" in anything, but make reference to either party by the name of their people, and this is "Israel". Subtitles and branch names only breed division and animosity... the things Yeshua's sacrifice should abolish.
But concerning salvation of the Jews, scripture is clear. Only the faithful servant will escape the wrath of the coming King. Faithless Jews are the same as Faithless Gentiles... children of Satan. I don't believe all the Jews will be saved, as this goes against scripture.
There's equality in salvation, and damnation though. Both for the Jew, and for the Gentile.
No favortism.
Shalom
One of the main reasons why I do not mix well with the Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) is because of their elitism. When I say elitism, I mean like treating one person/group/agenda better than another. Racial elitism keeps me from a majority of Messianic congregations because they at times favor "Jewish born" people with a greater measure than the bretheren from the nations. It's sad, but overly obvious sometimes as "Gentile" guests have to pay to attend a special food service or banquet, yet "unsaved Jews" are allowed to eat or enjoy the festivities for free. Such people should be ashamed of themselves. But such a thing isn't unknown, even in the church as shown in Galatians concerning Paul rebuking Peter for the same issue (elitism).
I do not seperate "Jews" or "Gentiles" in anything, but make reference to either party by the name of their people, and this is "Israel". Subtitles and branch names only breed division and animosity... the things Yeshua's sacrifice should abolish.
But concerning salvation of the Jews, scripture is clear. Only the faithful servant will escape the wrath of the coming King. Faithless Jews are the same as Faithless Gentiles... children of Satan. I don't believe all the Jews will be saved, as this goes against scripture.
There's equality in salvation, and damnation though. Both for the Jew, and for the Gentile.
No favortism.
Shalom
It was promiced to Abrahams seed of the flesh not seed of faith.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
The land from which he was astranged. separated
Lev 25:38 I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
God made the land promice and gave it to those brought out of Egypt.
Num 13:2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.
It was given to every tribe of Isreal
Num 36:9 Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.
That "Land"inheritance was to be kept, not to be sold or exchanged.
Psa 105:42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant.
Psa 105:43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:
Psa 105:44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labor of the people;
Psa 105:45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.
At the time the "Land" inhertance given the Gentiles were heathen.
Act 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm brought he them out of it.
Act 13:18 And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness.
Act 13:19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot.
And again we see that the land promice was given and received. How is it now that you claim that christians can be heirs to an inheritance that has already been given??????? God promiced that the land of canaan would belong to Isrial for all eternity.
Is God a lier?? Does he take away what he has promiced and given????
I think not.
Christians receive the inheritance of the seed of faith not the seed of the flesh. Both were promiced to Abraham. As a desentant of Abriham you patake in the land inheritance and by the Law you tithe.
Gentiles do not receive the inheritance by the Law., but by faith and that inheritance does not come with a command to tithe to the land inheritance. The inheritance of the seed of faith is the inheritance that has not as of yet been received. And that is not under the Law or obligation to the support of the tribe of Levi (The Preist)
I am not saying that one should not tithe. Nor am I saying that one should. Each should give as the Holy Spirit guides them and not under obligation to the Law.
2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
I go with Paul on this subject
sincerely
Cliff
please take a time to read this this could help... i myself got time to think this over and over again..
http://www.midnightministries.com/tithing.htm
http://www.midnightministries.com/tithing.htm
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
The concept of "Eternal Inheritance" is that it is in the posession of the one inheriting for all eternity, and cannot be stripped by them of any means... even death. The promise we see was made to and for Abraham, and his seed. Abraham cannot be excluded from the inheritance for it is promised to him also. In his lifetime, did he ever inherit the land for himself that was promised to him and his seed after him eternally? No he didn't. He died and went the way of sheol just as his sons did, and their sons after them. Scripture testifies that he and his co-heir sons did not recieve the promise of inheritance, but died without the fulfillment.
How could the promise of YHVH be fulfilled if the Patriarchs had not recieved the fulfillment of those promises before they died? Did they have the eternal inheritance promised them? Obviously not, for as it is written they... "embraced and confessed that they are aliens and tenants on the earth". Is YHVH a liar? Certainly not. For Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob WILL be resurrected in the resurrection and WILL be given the land of promise to them as YHVH has declared. Since they themselves will have eternal life, their eternal inheritance will never be stripped of them.
You move for quite a large amount of distinction in bloodline between Jews and Gentiles. But if you wish to discuss seed, we shall do so.
Abraham wasn't a "Jew" by blood, as his father Terah was a Pagan who worshiped other gods.
Abraham is regarded by Judaism, as the first Hebrew having been declared distinct from the other national peoples of his era, and set forth as the "father-type" (patriarch) of his people. Yet he was not a Hebrew by blood, but his distinction comes from his Faith which made him so. The sons of Abraham (physically) are seen as Hebrews/Jews and are often seen by some who do not understand Jewish custom and Torah on the subject, as "the only Jews". Yet often "faith-conversion" is overlooked.
In Conversion, one becomes "officially" Jewish, even to the point that the convert's children born afterwards, are fully Jewish too. This form of "conversion" is not rare, and is seen in other places in scripture.
Gentiles becoming Jews:
I only seek to point this out, because up until modern times, Jewish proselytes have always been given the lot of "100% true jews" (in layman's terms). If Abraham's physical seed (Jews) can be added to by conversion of Gentiles, what more needs to be said of those who are added to the seed by true faith in HaMashiach? Yet the idea of faith seed as being inheritants is challenged... though scripture is there for clarity. Same chapter as stated earlier:
Concerning who is a seed, and a child of Abraham, scripture is fully clear about this.
Scripture states that the flesh counts for nothing, but that the seed of Abraham IS the child of promise. Are the gentiles excluded from this family, and from Israel? Are they strangers in the land without inheritance?
The Gentiles, far off from the covenants of promise, and alienated from Israel, are now near to them because of the blood of Christ. If Gentiles are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise, and no longer alienated from Israel, why should they be treated as such with no inheritance? Are they not the seed of Abraham? Are they not his Children? Are they not Israel?
Yet again... the Gentile/Jewish faithful are His seed, and heirs...
In all this, the future eternal inheritance is for the seed of Abraham, which is the faithful of both Jews and Gentiles - as it is a matter of faith, not of blood. Those who are faithless are not counted among his seed, and are cut off from their people. It cannot be of physical seed for this alienates the Gentiles from their inheritance, and the land of the Kingdom to come. Are the Gentiles to dwell as strangers and tenants in the New Kingdom land, when scripture says they are neither? Of course not.
...continued
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
...continued
This merely means, the land Abraham traveled and made his abode upon, was to be the future inheritance for he and his seed. It makes two definate statements:
1.) He was a stranger to the land even upon his death, meaning he did not inherit it yet.
2.) YHVH will be the God of his seed. This automatically excludes anyone who does not have faith, Jew or Gentile. He makes the direct statement "and to thy seed after thee" and references this with "and I will be their God" making more reference to the seed from the nations whom will be "his people" (zech 2:11)
Yes YHVH did make the land promise, but the promise included Abraham, and his sons... yet they never recieved it as testified in Hebrews 11:8-13. This means the promise is unfulfilled until the Patriarchs recieve their inheritance. A promise partially fulfilled, is a promise unfulfilled.
Yet it stands in question, to what purpose and measure was the land given? It surely was the promised land, and it surely was posessed, but is it possessed by them now? Certainly not. It cannot be an eternal inheritance therefore, as it was merely temporal. The eternal inheritance occurs in the New Kingdom.
The land he gives to the Children of Israel. Who is Israel? The faithful. Both Jews and Gentiles alike (Ephesians 2:11-13)
Is this eternal inheritance, or land given to a people brought out of bondage? Either way the promise isn't fulfilled as the patriarchs do not have the inheritance. Remember, the promise is that ALL who are promised WILL possess it. At no point in time, has ALL of Israel (past/present/future) possessed it at the same time.
Yes land was given and recieved, but is this the inheritance promised? If Christians (Israelites) are excluded from the "inheritance given" then so are the patriarchs, for they were not present when the land was distributed.
This is false. Even during the time of Yeshua, the Israelites tithed. They did not own the land any longer, and had not owned it for some time. The Tithe Law is NOT for the land you inherit, but of your increase. Even Yeshua recognized this, and we see it from the example of the Pharisee:
Of Note: In Luke 18, he is not rebuking the pharisee for tithing, but for his attitude in doing so. The Pharisee echos Abraham in that he tithes "all things, as many as I get" for Abraham's aquisitions of war were not of the produce of land he inherited or possessed, but of other nations he defeated in battle. Yet he saw fit that the tithe be from his increase, and not from land he possessed (as he had none, being a stranger in the land).
But concerning inheritance by Law, no one inherits any promise by Law. For if it is by Law, it is void of promise.
If we go with Paul, we go with his example for sure. Paul was a Pharisee (even post conversion) (Acts 23:6), one who sought to fulfill the Torah (Romans 7:25), and was himself Torah Observant - teaching others to be likewise (Acts 21:21-24). If we go by his example, as Israelites, we tithe. If an issue of Law, it's easily seen that the heart reflects the one it serves.
Anyways apologies for the length of the response. I had to respond, and give responses to the scriptures quoted.
Shalom
Addressing scriptures quoted...
This merely means, the land Abraham traveled and made his abode upon, was to be the future inheritance for he and his seed. It makes two definate statements:
1.) He was a stranger to the land even upon his death, meaning he did not inherit it yet.
2.) YHVH will be the God of his seed. This automatically excludes anyone who does not have faith, Jew or Gentile. He makes the direct statement "and to thy seed after thee" and references this with "and I will be their God" making more reference to the seed from the nations whom will be "his people" (zech 2:11)
Yes YHVH did make the land promise, but the promise included Abraham, and his sons... yet they never recieved it as testified in Hebrews 11:8-13. This means the promise is unfulfilled until the Patriarchs recieve their inheritance. A promise partially fulfilled, is a promise unfulfilled.
Yet it stands in question, to what purpose and measure was the land given? It surely was the promised land, and it surely was posessed, but is it possessed by them now? Certainly not. It cannot be an eternal inheritance therefore, as it was merely temporal. The eternal inheritance occurs in the New Kingdom.
The land he gives to the Children of Israel. Who is Israel? The faithful. Both Jews and Gentiles alike (Ephesians 2:11-13)
Is this eternal inheritance, or land given to a people brought out of bondage? Either way the promise isn't fulfilled as the patriarchs do not have the inheritance. Remember, the promise is that ALL who are promised WILL possess it. At no point in time, has ALL of Israel (past/present/future) possessed it at the same time.
Yes land was given and recieved, but is this the inheritance promised? If Christians (Israelites) are excluded from the "inheritance given" then so are the patriarchs, for they were not present when the land was distributed.
This is false. Even during the time of Yeshua, the Israelites tithed. They did not own the land any longer, and had not owned it for some time. The Tithe Law is NOT for the land you inherit, but of your increase. Even Yeshua recognized this, and we see it from the example of the Pharisee:
Of Note: In Luke 18, he is not rebuking the pharisee for tithing, but for his attitude in doing so. The Pharisee echos Abraham in that he tithes "all things, as many as I get" for Abraham's aquisitions of war were not of the produce of land he inherited or possessed, but of other nations he defeated in battle. Yet he saw fit that the tithe be from his increase, and not from land he possessed (as he had none, being a stranger in the land).
But concerning inheritance by Law, no one inherits any promise by Law. For if it is by Law, it is void of promise.
If we go with Paul, we go with his example for sure. Paul was a Pharisee (even post conversion) (Acts 23:6), one who sought to fulfill the Torah (Romans 7:25), and was himself Torah Observant - teaching others to be likewise (Acts 21:21-24). If we go by his example, as Israelites, we tithe. If an issue of Law, it's easily seen that the heart reflects the one it serves.
Anyways apologies for the length of the response. I had to respond, and give responses to the scriptures quoted.
Shalom
Tithe is under the Law. It is that simple. To give freely from the heart is by faith. If you choose to tithe as (under the Law) then I must assume that you choose be under the Law. This my freind goes for all that believe, Jew and Gentile alike..
The basic differance being those who "Tithe" all too often believe that their "tithe" is sufficient as in the rich man that walked a way saddened
Your assumption like many others is that every one who doesn't tithe doesn't give as much. So very sad that you doubt God and your bretheren so.
Shalom
The basic differance being those who "Tithe" all too often believe that their "tithe" is sufficient as in the rich man that walked a way saddened
Your assumption like many others is that every one who doesn't tithe doesn't give as much. So very sad that you doubt God and your bretheren so.
Shalom
AN FYI -
The person who initially started this thread with a one sentence question has not been back to comment on anything that has been posted here, or anywhere else in the forum. We invite "jbbaab44" to participate in this discussion once again and to give us some insight into your thoughts when you started this thread. Thank you for your courtesy, in following up on your posting.
Pastor Gary, on behalf of the Moderator Team.
The person who initially started this thread with a one sentence question has not been back to comment on anything that has been posted here, or anywhere else in the forum. We invite "jbbaab44" to participate in this discussion once again and to give us some insight into your thoughts when you started this thread. Thank you for your courtesy, in following up on your posting.
Pastor Gary, on behalf of the Moderator Team.
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
It is? Do you mean... the Law as Codified (Law given through Moses into written form for the people), or the Law as Un-Codified (Unwritten Law of YHVH).
If we draw from Abraham as example of how one of faith acts and conducts oneself, then we'd see that the one of faith tithes, and not merely because "it is a Law", but because faith moves the heart to act in accordance to it. Even Abraham obeyed Torah, centuries before it was given in written form to the Children of Israel.
Truly to give from the heart is a matter of faith, for the Lawless have no part in the things of YHVH. The Lawless live a life of opposition to His ways, His decrees, His ordinances. But the ones of faith seek to draw themselves closer to the one in which they have faith, to obey the charge, commands, statutes, and laws of the one they love. For is it not written:
And yet again...
and yet further...
Do not be mistaken, observing Torah BECAUSE of faith does NOT place one under the Law. Depending on the Law for salvation is what does that, and these people will perish for what they depend on for salvation, for it condemns them to destruction.
Or for easier readability for those who do not understand the grammer...
Question is, being of the Faith, do we tithe? Or do we need to categorize "fruits of the faith" (Obedience to Torah) as "legalism" and "being under the Law" so that we may avoid such things?
Is this my assumption, or your assumption about me friend?
Shalom
Cliff said:
This was out of line> For that I apologize.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,
Why do you, tell Gentiles that we must obey the commandments that even the Jews have not kept?
There is no precident, provision, commandment, to either give or receive tithe in the church.
Beloved, if our heart does not accuse us, we have confidence with God. And whatever we ask, we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments, and we do the things pleasing before Him. And this is His commandment, that we should believe the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as He gave command to us. And the one keeping His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave to us.
1 John 3:21-24
I rejoiced greatly because I found your children walking in truth, as we received command from the Father. And I now request you, lady, not writing as a new commandment, but one which we had from the beginning, that we should love one another. And this is love, that we should walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, even as you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.
2 John 1:4-6
These two verses have absoluely no relationship to your contention that Gentiles or Christians must tithe.
Your removal from context and mis use of these two peices of scripture leaves me no choice but to end my part in this discussion.
I will not be a part of such obvious disreguard for the word of God.
sincerely His
Cliff.
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
I did not quote 1 John 3:21-24 and 2 John 1:4-6 for support that we "should" tithe. This was in response to the nature of tithing as you first addressed. Faith or Law? This is what you stated that I placed those in response to:
My assertion is that tithing isn't blind observance to Law, but that if it is a commandment that one should obey, it is done because of Faith, and not "in place of". Fundamentally I wanted to draw the mentality away from the thought that "Torah Observance is purely legalism and nothing of the spirit" which is false. It was not my intention for those two passages to appear as direct evidence that we should tithe, as tithing is a thing of the heart, as much as any other observance given by YHVH.
This is fallacious as the "burden" is often misinterpreted as the written Torah. For sake of clarity, an explination is in order.
Acts 15 begins on this note:
At this, Paul rightly argued with these "mysterious teachers" which eventually led to an assembly being pulled together to discuss the matter. Now verse 1 does not shed light appropriately for those unlearned of the circumcision rite. The custom given to Abraham is the Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, but this reference to "according to the custom of Moses" is not merely circumcision... which we see in verse 5.
Not alot of people study this aspect. They see "Law of Moses" and automatically assume it's in direct reference to written Torah (given through Moses) but they systematically IGNORE the ones presenting the argument.
"from the sect of the Pharisees"
The Pharisees are the fathers of modern Rabbinical Judaism, which in this time held many things in falsehood that the modern Rabbinical Jews still hold to. One of their key teachings, is that the "Oral Law" (Traditions of Men) is ALSO "the Law of Moses" as by tradition, they believe the Oral Law was handed down at the same time as the Written Torah. Based on this, the Pharisees believed the Oral Law had "more" authority than the written Torah, because it was an "explination" of the written Torah in many aspects. At times the Oral Law overulled the Written Torah, and we see this in scripture.
The "tradition of men" (Oral Law) was spoken of as a burden by Yeshua:
This is the same "burden" Peter speaks of when he addresses the council.
Those of the sect of the Pharisees who saw the Oral Law as being the Law of Moses also, were demanding that the believers first convert to Pharistic Judaism (be circumcised and follow both the Oral and Written Torah) before they could be saved. If one believes the Council did not "burden" the Gentiles with the Written Torah, they are misled.
All four of these things are found in the Written Torah. All four were given to the Gentiles. Its absurd to believe that the burden is the Written Torah, as it would fly in the face of Peter's statement as well as the decision of the council. In short, this is how some believe the council acted.
Peter: "Lets not burden them with Torah."
James: "Agreed."
*The Apostles and Elders of the Church write to the Gentiles, telling them to observe 4 Torah ordinances.*
See how silly that looks?
I tell Gentiles to obey commandments Jews have not kept? Which commandments have they not kept at any point in time? Was the commandments really ONLY for the "Jews" or for all of Israel? Are Gentiles excluded from Israel?
And is there really no precident?
I hope you're not one who holds to the "replacement" doctrine.
Shalom
My assertion is that tithing isn't blind observance to Law, but that if it is a commandment that one should obey, it is done because of Faith, and not "in place of". Fundamentally I wanted to draw the mentality away from the thought that "Torah Observance is purely legalism and nothing of the spirit" which is false. It was not my intention for those two passages to appear as direct evidence that we should tithe, as tithing is a thing of the heart, as much as any other observance given by YHVH.
This is fallacious as the "burden" is often misinterpreted as the written Torah. For sake of clarity, an explination is in order.
Acts 15 begins on this note:
At this, Paul rightly argued with these "mysterious teachers" which eventually led to an assembly being pulled together to discuss the matter. Now verse 1 does not shed light appropriately for those unlearned of the circumcision rite. The custom given to Abraham is the Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, but this reference to "according to the custom of Moses" is not merely circumcision... which we see in verse 5.
Not alot of people study this aspect. They see "Law of Moses" and automatically assume it's in direct reference to written Torah (given through Moses) but they systematically IGNORE the ones presenting the argument.
"from the sect of the Pharisees"
The Pharisees are the fathers of modern Rabbinical Judaism, which in this time held many things in falsehood that the modern Rabbinical Jews still hold to. One of their key teachings, is that the "Oral Law" (Traditions of Men) is ALSO "the Law of Moses" as by tradition, they believe the Oral Law was handed down at the same time as the Written Torah. Based on this, the Pharisees believed the Oral Law had "more" authority than the written Torah, because it was an "explination" of the written Torah in many aspects. At times the Oral Law overulled the Written Torah, and we see this in scripture.
The "tradition of men" (Oral Law) was spoken of as a burden by Yeshua:
This is the same "burden" Peter speaks of when he addresses the council.
Those of the sect of the Pharisees who saw the Oral Law as being the Law of Moses also, were demanding that the believers first convert to Pharistic Judaism (be circumcised and follow both the Oral and Written Torah) before they could be saved. If one believes the Council did not "burden" the Gentiles with the Written Torah, they are misled.
All four of these things are found in the Written Torah. All four were given to the Gentiles. Its absurd to believe that the burden is the Written Torah, as it would fly in the face of Peter's statement as well as the decision of the council. In short, this is how some believe the council acted.
Peter: "Lets not burden them with Torah."
James: "Agreed."
*The Apostles and Elders of the Church write to the Gentiles, telling them to observe 4 Torah ordinances.*
See how silly that looks?
I tell Gentiles to obey commandments Jews have not kept? Which commandments have they not kept at any point in time? Was the commandments really ONLY for the "Jews" or for all of Israel? Are Gentiles excluded from Israel?
And is there really no precident?
I hope you're not one who holds to the "replacement" doctrine.
Shalom
What is in order at this point in time is your complete definition of "Tithe".
Because what I see in scripture under the Old Testement Law is not supported in the New Testement and cannot be supported applied or justified in the church.
There is no shortage of scripture related ti tithing in the OT. They were told when, were, how to collect. What and whom it was for and what was to be done with it. NO SUCH SCRIPTURE EXISTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEW TESTEMENT CHURCH!!
If you are as many do using the 10% aspect of the tithe as indication of anothers good works that is legalism and placing money over faith and one man over another in the church.
I am not talking Law verses faith here. I'm talking about what is happening in the reality of a falling world with a church that is incumbered with antiChrists and deceivers.
The scripture concerning circumission I quoted shows a paralel to tithing. For circumcission was also a commandment of the Law. and it also has passed from law to faith (of the heart) therefore there is no need to prove the obedience to either.
If one tithes ,they tithe if they get circumcized they get circumsized. That is now a matter between the individual and our savour. And the church has no business in any way shape or form to be indicating, requesting much less demanding (As Some DO!!) that the anyone tithe.
Any way you wish to put it if the church requires it and the individual complies out of fear or pride then it is not given in faith in Christ but legalism ,that they believe it necessary to their salvation.
2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
The setting of a specific amount, even by the individual for himself is a form of legalism. To say as the Pharicees did "I have given my tithe and am in no obligation to give more" is by no means giving as they are purposed in their heart. It at best can only be chariterized as self justification by legalism.
And that is exactly what you get when you say "tithe"
Either one man will impose it upon another for personal purose or one will use it for self justification.That is undeniably the natue of mankind.
Jesus as a Jew, had only to perfectly obey the law to save himself. (Which by the way He was the only man who could or ever did) But His and now our father willed that He give more than what was called for under the Law.
Praise the Lord he did not say as many who speak of "tithing" say ;"I have tithed. I am under no obligation to give or do more" For it was by His giving of 100%,His precious life, not 10% that we are saved.
שׁמע ישׂראל
Inactive
Show me at least once, where the Tithe is spoken against in the New Testament. Just once.
There's this thing... called... continuance. The people did not have to be re-taught how to walk and act as they should as they were already given the scripture for this. Yeshua's teaching on Torah wasn't giving new commandments, but teaching them as they should be taught.
Even the NT letters are written to address breaches in the "continuance". People were fornicating, lying, stealing, being gluttons, and rightly so, the letters are written to rebuke such things in people that should know better. But of this:
Do you not percieve the words of Paul?
Paul states that the Holy Scriptures are those which Timothy "Knew from a babe". Timothy's mother was a Jew who taught him the only Holy Scriptures around. The Tanakh (Old Testament). This is the Holy Scripture he says is "God-breathed" and ALL:
Profitable for doctrine
Profitable for reproof
Profitable for correction
Profitable for instruction in righteousness
The point is, if the Church was/is to establish tithe as a doctrine, it would have to look to the Tanakh (Old Testament) which promotes tithing. There is no example of annullment of tithe in the Old Testament either. If ALL the Old Testament is profitable for doctrine, why is it not used in accordance to the doctrine of tithing?
I would say hypocracy among other things in agreement with you on that. But the tithe for the one of faith should be just as Abraham saw it. Giving a tenth of increase not because of a commandment, but because the heart leads one to do so.
The commandments help to lead the heart, and instruct in righteousness (where we are ignorant). They reveal the path of holiness, not keep one from walking it.
I'd have to agree with the anti-Christs and decievers part of your statement, but I'd have to assert just what message they bring. They bring "lawlessness" which is falling away from the "Law" (Torah). This is the same thing the liars and false ones spoke about Paul, saying he taught "falling away from Torah" (meaning to not continue in it).
I mention this because Torah gives the ordinance of tithe, which is part of what the liars and false ones said Paul was preaching against. (Observing Torah)
Note James states three things people are lying about concerning Paul. These things are that Paul:
1.) Teaches falling away from Torah
2.) Teaches to abandon circumcision
3.) Teaches against the customs
James says these are lies, but that Paul himself is Torah Observant. But it doesn't stop there. A mob of evil people try to trap him again, saying the exact same thing:
Now note, this is the Nazarite Purification he's taking part in, and this requires animal sacrifice (though not for remission of sin). Not only did he sacrifice for himself, but was awaiting the completion animal sacrifice for them all. This observance of Torah was interrupted though by a crowd of liars who shouted "This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people and the Law and this place." Which as we saw earlier, James says is a lie. He didn't preach against observing the Law (Torah).
It seems though, that the message is preached by these false prophets and false brothers in the church who preach against Torah Observance.
Are you teaching lawlessness?
You have quoted this, and it should be known that 2 Corinthians 9 is not in reference to Tithing at all. You'll get the context, and what the collection is for in the very first verse itself:
This is regarding a monetary blessing for those who are lacking in the church. It is not in reference to a tithe given as observed through Torah. The church had already promised this blessing, and Paul asked that it be prepared before hand so that he would not have to "go door to door" basically.
This is not to be confused with tithing, as it is a collection for those lacking within the church.
The setting of the 10% isn't a form of legalism, it's the function of the "tithe". Because I assume by your username that you have some familiarity with the greek, I will speak of the greek for "tithe". The word used for tithe is apodekatoō, of which "deka" means 10, and "dekatoō" is "to exact the tenth". The setting of the 10th part, as was given, was not merely to support the temple and the priests, but was shown as a condition of the heart. If one did not tithe, it was not only refusal of the commandment, but refusal to aknowledge those given as ministers to the people, which in turn is something to be said of their relationship with YHVH. Greed?
So the root of the commandment of YHVH is evility? That's a tough pill to swallow friend.
The price His father placed, was 100%, not 10. But we should thank him further that he did not say as many say:
"Give how you want, however you feel."
Else it woulda been a boring day for the world on Calvary. (review Yeshua in the Garden, and "how he felt")
Shalom
- Status