Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

No Nicolaitans

The Biblical Tithe: Cash or Crops?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I've gone 'round and 'round with Ronald and Linda for years.  I say the bible teaches money and is a command for today, they disagree.

Not only do we disagree with you, but the Bible disagrees with you as well.

I wouldn't have published the book if the Bible taught monetary tithing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Hardly.  When we did not tithe we were chastened and missed out on many blessings.  Now that we do tithe our cup runneth over.  You should try it sometime.

The point isn't in the tithing, it is in the giving. Nowhere in the New Testament (which does not include the 4 gospels as those were still OT under the law), is tithing ever endorsed. It is only mentioned in Hebrews a couple times, referring back to Abraham. If it was a biblical precept for the church, it surely would have been IN the letters to the church as a requirement. Yet it is completely missing-completely, 100% not there. Whatsoever. By saying, 'Well, it works for me!', you are making it pragmatic. If it works for you, it MUST be the biblical truth. Except you can't back it with scripture, and I thought that was where we IFB-types get our truths. Christians should not deal in pragmatism and teach it as truth.

The point is, we are to be givers-free will, as the Lord gives, we should give again. As we are blessed, so we should bless. It is much more akin to the OT examples of when the temple was in need of repairs, and a box would be put out for people to give into, a freewill offering, or the freewill offerings they would give in sacrifices. They were separate from a tithe, as it was completely by choice-as you felt blessed by the Lord, so you gave. As you wished to help repair the house of God, so you gave, as you chose. Kind of like what the early church did when they sold their lands and properties and laid it at the feet of the Apostles-it was a freewill offering. THIS is what the New testament teaches, not a tithe.

Some may say, 'Well, I don't see it as any different; I don't give because I think I HAVE to give, but because i WANT to give!' And that's very good, exactly as it should be! But in a church where a tithe is taught, stop giving for a while and you'll probably hear about it, because you haven't given "YOUR TITHE" (that was meant to sound like a deep, bass voice with heavy echos). If a tithe is taught, it is a requirement in the eyes of that church. If you are a pastor who teaches a tithe, but don't believe it is a requirement, then stop teaching a tithe and start teach a freewill offering. You might see your finances drop real quick when people know they don't HAVE to give.

At least, this has been MY experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many words are not used in many places throughout the bible and yet principals and meanings still apply.  The tithe is still in effect and indeed, we are to give even more than a tenth as God has prospered us.

I do not wish to (not sure I'm using the right words here) take away or diminish the efforts that SFIC has taken with his new book.  If this is the place to discuss his new book, then I've said my peace and will say no more.  The regulars know where I've stood on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I don't have a garden and I don't think it's appropriate for my pastor to be dressed in the skins I would sew together, I've decided to give him cash. I'm sure non-tithers are providing garden vegetables and deer skin coats they've made for their pastors and missionaries. I'm sure the local brick and mortar providers are excepting payment in vegetables and bear rugs for payment too. Oh, you meet in your home and patch the roof with buffalo hide. Don't you non-tithers see the absurdity in not tithing and giving to missions?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Since I don't have a garden and I don't think it's appropriate for my pastor to be dressed in the skins I would sew together, I've decided to give him cash. I'm sure non-tithers are providing garden vegetables and deer skin coats they've made for their pastors and missionaries. I'm sure the local brick and mortar providers are excepting payment in vegetables and bear rugs for payment too. Oh, you meet in your home and patch the roof with buffalo hide. Don't you non-tithers see the absurdity in not tithing and giving to missions?  

This non tither no longer gives anything to any religious institution that lies about what God's commanded tithe is. 

God's Church is built on the truths written and spoken by the Apostles and Prophets... not on lies.  The church built on lies will one day fall.

Instead of giving to a church that teaches contrary to what God said His holy tithe is, we give to people in need in our network of friends.

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tithe was not for the pastor or high priest, it was for the support of all of the priests and Levites and the upkeep of the temple..  It was a national tax.  It was for all Jews.  Josephus tells us that the tithe or temple tax was the nation's only income..  They had no other tax than what the Romans imposed on them.

We do not have a plate, or a bag for collections , or the modern Idea of having credit card readers, We just have a freewill offering box on the wall at the back, entitled The Lord's Treasury.  The Lord meets all our needs, despite being a small church of about 20 members with a large building to upkeep. I see no command in the new testament for a tithe just the following.

2 Corr::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.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Many words are not used in many places throughout the bible and yet principals and meanings still apply.  The tithe is still in effect and indeed, we are to give even more than a tenth as God has prospered us.

I do not wish to (not sure I'm using the right words here) take away or diminish the efforts that SFIC has taken with his new book.  If this is the place to discuss his new book, then I've said my peace and will say no more.  The regulars know where I've stood on this subject.

Hebrews 7 read the whole thing reaaaaalllyy slowly. Ruminate on it. It discusses the importance of tithing and that the tithe is a sacrifice. The last three verses are the punchline. For such an high preists ( Christ) became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, , separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; v27 who needeth not daily, as those  High priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sin s, and then for the people s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. v28 For The law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Tithing is a good principle and I certainly wouldn't decry it; however, I'm not sure we can teach it as an obligation that must be obeyed. 

In my view we should encourage believers to seek the Lord and ask Him to direct their whole lives, including their giving to His work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

I'm sure that Tithing is a good principle and I certainly wouldn't decry it; however, I'm not sure we can teach it as an obligation that must be obeyed. 

In my view we should encourage believers to seek the Lord and ask Him to direct their whole lives, including their giving to His work.

But this, now, would be considered pragmatism. That would be fine if no other principle was taught. However, the OT taught clearly that a 'tithe' was of meat and crops, while a freewill offering could be those, but was also money. In the OT, look up the word 'tithes': every time it is mentioned, it is in context to grain, meat (crops), the fruit of the field, etc. Always.

The New testament doesn't teach ANY tithe anywhere, just freewill giving, as one has been blessed, and as one loves the work and the Lord, so you give. Not of necessity. A tithe WAS a necessity. So we can't just all pray and see what God wants us to do when He has spoken already-though we Do each need to lok and see how much the Lord would have us give.

19 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Since I don't have a garden and I don't think it's appropriate for my pastor to be dressed in the skins I would sew together, I've decided to give him cash. I'm sure non-tithers are providing garden vegetables and deer skin coats they've made for their pastors and missionaries. I'm sure the local brick and mortar providers are excepting payment in vegetables and bear rugs for payment too. Oh, you meet in your home and patch the roof with buffalo hide. Don't you non-tithers see the absurdity in not tithing and giving to missions?  

You make the silly assumption that if we don't tithe, we don't give. If I believ in the Bible, then I give. If I love the Lord and His work, I give-THAT is the New Testament principle of giving. Your assumption sounds very much like an SDA who would say, "Oh, you don't keep the OT Law? then you are clearl lawless and are against God!", and of course, you would agree that is foolish-we keep to the many commands of the New Testament, but not the Old, as it is no longer in effect. So, the OT tithe is not in effect for believers, and never way-we practice New testament giving as we are given to. But either way, it is still giving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

You make the silly assumption that if we don't tithe, we don't give. If I believ in the Bible, then I give. If I love the Lord and His work, I give-THAT is the New Testament principle of giving. Your assumption sounds very much like an SDA who would say, "Oh, you don't keep the OT Law? then you are clearl lawless and are against God!", and of course, you would agree that is foolish-we keep to the many commands of the New Testament, but not the Old, as it is no longer in effect. So, the OT tithe is not in effect for believers, and never way-we practice New testament giving as we are given to. But either way, it is still giving.

I make no such assumption. I have read that Biblical Tithing is the only form you may use. So the vegetables and animal skins is very realistic, for those who do not support tithe and giving above and beyond the tithe. I do take some exception to you as a moderator  referring to my analysis as "silly". If I said that to a moderator I would have a "warning level" over the top. I do not think that Matt meant to give cart blanche to moderators to speak disrespectfully toward members, that may be another "silly assumption" on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason that threads on this topic have been locked in the past is the manner in which folks address each other. Regardless of our "status" on OB, let's keep this discussion civil, or it, too, will be locked. That means not addressing the thoughts of someone who disagrees with adjectives that are demeaning. It also means not getting up on our spiritual high horse because we do or don't tithe and everyone else who doesn't do as we do is a liar and not following God.

And, BTW - the entirety of scripture is inspired. And the entirety of scripture applies to us, in one way or another. Tithing was done before the law - before any "national tax". ergo it cannot be lumped under the idea that only law-keepers tithe. Claiming that a person is CURSED if they don't tithe, however, DOES come from the law, and we are not cursed if we are in Christ. We CANNOT be free in Christ and cursed at the same time.

We tithe. Of our money, because we do not live in an agrarian society - and you can say what you will, I don't care - not meaning to sound snide. It's just that your opinion of our actions won't sway us from doing what we believe God would have us do. We tithe. And we give freewill offering. And we do both cheerfully, thankful that we have something TO give. God is good. Even when we mortals can't agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many, in their zeal to defend their monetary tithe teaching pastors, will be quick to state that “They didn’t have money in ancient Israel, so they tithed crops and livestock.”

 

But is that true?  Were the ancient Israelites as destitute as so many want to portray them as being?

A careful study of the word of God will reveal to the reader that silver was the means of buying and selling from the time of Abraham and forward.

 
In Genesis 23, Abraham purchases the cave at Mach-Pelah from Ephron for 400 shekels of silver. Verse 16 of this chapter tells us that silver is the “current money of the merchant”.
 
In Genesis 37, Joseph is sold into slavery for twenty pieces of silver.
 
In Genesis 43, Joseph’s brethren took “double money” to Egypt to buy food. The word “money” in this chapter is translated from the Hebrew “keceph”. Keceph is defined as “silver."

In Exodus 21, if a man’s ox injured another man’s slave, the owner of the ox was to pay the owner of the slave in silver.

 In Exodus 30, every male between the age of 20 and 60 is required to pay a tax of a half-shekel of silver annually,… whether they are rich or poor.
 
In Leviticus 27, many things dedicated to God can be redeemed (bought back) with silver. Even a portion of one’s crops tithe could be redeemed.
 
In Deuteronomy 14. the Feast tithe could be sold if it was too heavy, or if there was a chance of it spoiling before the Israelite reached the place of festivities. Upon reaching the place of festivities, the Israelites was to buy food as the Feast tithe and eat it with his family.
 
In Judges 9. Abimelech paid people silver to follow him.
 
In Judges 17, graven image purchased with 200 shekels of silver
 
In Jeremiah 32, The weeping prophet purchased land from his uncle Hanameel with 17 pieces of silver.
 
In Matthew 14, ointment might have been sold for three hundred pence. (denarius)
 
In Matthew 20, parable speaks of workers agreeing to work for a penny.
 
As to Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek... it was of war spoils, not of his monetary income.  There is not one recorded instance in the entire Bible where Abram is said to have tithed his money, or his possession, to Melchizedek.
 
Abram was living in an era when kings expected tithes of war spoils.  The tithing of war spoils had been practiced for more than 285 years before Abram met with Melchizedek in the Valley of Shaveh.

The account of Abram's tithe is descriptive... not prescriptive.  In other words, there is no instruction in the word of God that says, Because Abram tithed to Melchizedek, the saved of God must tithe to their leaders."

 
And, as pointed out previously in this post, Israel’s tithe was of agricultural increase, not of their monetary income.

Israel’s monetary system, as proven by the verses  referenced above, was silver and not agricultural increase.
 
There is nothing in the word of God that indicates anyone being required to tithe their monetary income to either Tabernacle, Temple, Synagogue or Church.

God knows everything that ever happened in the past. He knows what is happening in the present. He knows what will happen in the future.

He made no provision in His word for man in any period of time to preach contrary to what is written in His Holy word. His commanded tithe was agricultural then. It has not changed to money, whether man wishes to make it money or not.

Man can say God’s tithe is money for the next fifty years from now. But, ten thousand years beyond that, the Bible will still say the commanded tithe is agricultural.

It is forever settled in Heaven. God’s commanded tithe never was, nor will it ever be money.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient peoples and in America, country folk, had little use for money when bartering and trading were more prominent.  The government has changed all that so that they can get more and more of our wealth.  So now nearly everywhere money is more prominent than trading and barter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter what people in other lands did, or do for buying and selling, wages, etc, etc.. 

God's word is supposed to be the Christian's final authority in all matter of faith and practice.  And God's word reveals that, although the children of Israel used silver for their system of buying and selling, (see my above post) God's tithe was to come strictly from agriculture. 

I don't base God's tithe on what people in third world countries  do to survive.  Nor do I base God's tithe on what people in the United States of America do to survive.  I base God's tithe on what His word says His tithe is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I make no such assumption. I have read that Biblical Tithing is the only form you may use. So the vegetables and animal skins is very realistic, for those who do not support tithe and giving above and beyond the tithe. I do take some exception to you as a moderator  referring to my analysis as "silly". If I said that to a moderator I would have a "warning level" over the top. I do not think that Matt meant to give cart blanche to moderators to speak disrespectfully toward members, that may be another "silly assumption" on my part.

I didn't say YOU were silly, I said your assumption is silly, and you did, indeed, make the assumption, though it may not have been intentional, it is how it came across. You said "Don't you non-tithers see the absurdity of not tithing and giving to missions?" so you have said, in effect, if you don't believe in tithing, you don't give, (to you a tithe=giving), and we certainly don't give to missions. And that is completely incorrect, thus, it is silly. And it wasn't your analysis that was silly, it was your accusation that "non-tithers' don't give. Tithing is NOT the only means of giving, even in the OT, regardless of how you feel about it: there were freewill offerings of all sorts: the issue with the tith is that it was NOT freewill, it was mandatory-thus, you believe that tithing is a mandatory giving for all believers, but that is completely false, it is not to be found anywhere in New Testament scripture. And I don't speak this as a moderator, but as a member and a fellow believer.  It just isn't there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

One reason that threads on this topic have been locked in the past is the manner in which folks address each other. Regardless of our "status" on OB, let's keep this discussion civil, or it, too, will be locked. That means not addressing the thoughts of someone who disagrees with adjectives that are demeaning. It also means not getting up on our spiritual high horse because we do or don't tithe and everyone else who doesn't do as we do is a liar and not following God.

And, BTW - the entirety of scripture is inspired. And the entirety of scripture applies to us, in one way or another. Tithing was done before the law - before any "national tax". ergo it cannot be lumped under the idea that only law-keepers tithe. Claiming that a person is CURSED if they don't tithe, however, DOES come from the law, and we are not cursed if we are in Christ. We CANNOT be free in Christ and cursed at the same time.

We tithe. Of our money, because we do not live in an agrarian society - and you can say what you will, I don't care - not meaning to sound snide. It's just that your opinion of our actions won't sway us from doing what we believe God would have us do. We tithe. And we give freewill offering. And we do both cheerfully, thankful that we have something TO give. God is good. Even when we mortals can't agree. 

And people sacrificed cattle before the law, as well.

The tithing that Abraham did before the law was a voluntary thing, but the tithing we usually point to in scripture for use today is all of the law-had Abraham not given a tithe to Melchesidek, would he have been seen as 'robbing' God? No, he chose to give because he wanted to. Later, however, the Jews are told that they are robbing God of His tithe-thus, it was a mandatory giving of not money, but foodstuffs, even though people gave money for the use of the house of God at the same time, but always freewill offerings.

So when a church teaches a tithe today, it is attaching a legality to it that doesn't exist in the churches today; nowhere can an idea of tithing be found anywhere in the New Testament, and in fact, we are specifically told that we don't give out of necessity. "But this I say, He wich soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2Cor 9:6,7) NOT of necessity. A tithe imples necessity, demand, law. And I have seen it practiced and taught as such before, many times, that our 10% tithe is expected, and anything about that is an offering. That isn't scripture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

And people sacrificed cattle before the law, as well.

The tithing that Abraham did before the law was a voluntary thing, but the tithing we usually point to in scripture for use today is all of the law-had Abraham not given a tithe to Melchesidek, would he have been seen as 'robbing' God? No, he chose to give because he wanted to. Later, however, the Jews are told that they are robbing God of His tithe-thus, it was a mandatory giving of not money, but foodstuffs, even though people gave money for the use of the house of God at the same time, but always freewill offerings.

So when a church teaches a tithe today, it is attaching a legality to it that doesn't exist in the churches today; nowhere can an idea of tithing be found anywhere in the New Testament, and in fact, we are specifically told that we don't give out of necessity. "But this I say, He wich soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2Cor 9:6,7) NOT of necessity. A tithe imples necessity, demand, law. And I have seen it practiced and taught as such before, many times, that our 10% tithe is expected, and anything about that is an offering. That isn't scripture.

 

Exactly!  And to show how much the church preaches tithing as a Law (even though they point to Melchizedek) one only notice how they run to the Law to prove it must be done. 

...then there's the condescending remarks made about non-tither's that also shows that tithing is made a  Law. for the Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I didn't say YOU were silly, I said your assumption is silly

Gotta say that's a neat way to direct condescending remarks at people and sidestep censure. No if someone told me my opinions were silly/stupid/idiotic or whatever, I'd take that as them calling me silly/stupid/idiotic. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that--now folk know how to get at me. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

And people sacrificed cattle before the law, as well.

The tithing that Abraham did before the law was a voluntary thing, but the tithing we usually point to in scripture for use today is all of the law-had Abraham not given a tithe to Melchesidek, would he have been seen as 'robbing' God? No, he chose to give because he wanted to. Later, however, the Jews are told that they are robbing God of His tithe-thus, it was a mandatory giving of not money, but foodstuffs, even though people gave money for the use of the house of God at the same time, but always freewill offerings.

So when a church teaches a tithe today, it is attaching a legality to it that doesn't exist in the churches today; nowhere can an idea of tithing be found anywhere in the New Testament, and in fact, we are specifically told that we don't give out of necessity. "But this I say, He wich soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2Cor 9:6,7) NOT of necessity. A tithe imples necessity, demand, law. And I have seen it practiced and taught as such before, many times, that our 10% tithe is expected, and anything about that is an offering. That isn't scripture.

 

Where did I say that one who doesn't tithe is robbing God? I did not even imply that in any way, shape or form. (and, honestly, you don't know how Abraham would have been seen today re: robbing God had he not tithed, because he did tithe...) Did you read the part where I said there is no curse attached?  That very verse you're referencing that talks about robbing God (although I didn't quote the verse, it comes from the same passage in Malachi)? Yes, Abraham chose to give because he wanted to. And what he gave was called a tithe. And, lo and behold, it wasn't just crops, either. It was "of all."  

There is such a thing as "law of first mention." It's interesting to note that many people who subscribe to the idea of law of first mention ignore or explain away the first mention of tithing by grouping all tithing under the law God gave to Israel. (I don't know if you accept the idea of law of first mention or not, so I'm not pointing at you particularly, just making an observation)

A tithe only implies law when the person who teaches against it wants it to. Because Abraham is still an example of a pre-law tither, whether folks sacrificed cattle before the law or not. The only time a church attaches legality to the teaching of tithe is when they add the curse God put on Israel for robbing Him.

"Pointing to Melchizadek" is completely proper - God saw fit to record the instance of Abraham tithing for a reason.  In both the OT and NT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I didn't say YOU were silly, I said your assumption is silly, and you did, indeed, make the assumption, though it may not have been intentional, it is how it came across. You said "Don't you non-tithers see the absurdity of not tithing and giving to missions?" so you have said, in effect, if you don't believe in tithing, you don't give, (to you a tithe=giving), and we certainly don't give to missions. And that is completely incorrect, thus, it is silly. And it wasn't your analysis that was silly, it was your accusation that "non-tithers' don't give. Tithing is NOT the only means of giving, even in the OT, regardless of how you feel about it: there were freewill offerings of all sorts: the issue with the tith is that it was NOT freewill, it was mandatory-thus, you believe that tithing is a mandatory giving for all believers, but that is completely false, it is not to be found anywhere in New Testament scripture. And I don't speak this as a moderator, but as a member and a fellow believer.  It just isn't there.

 

Yep, I believe giving, tithing, missions, and special love offerings are graces we should grow in. If you don't that's totally up to you. I will continue to grow in this grace and pray for those who don't. I will say that it won't keep either of us out of heaven; regardless of giving by using the OT tithe method or giving as the Holy Spirit teaches in the NT. Please forgive me if I've offended your position of not tithing or supporting missionaries. As for the bolded above, I meant it just the way it sounded , exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alimantado said:

Gotta say that's a neat way to direct condescending remarks at people and sidestep censure. No if someone told me my opinions were silly/stupid/idiotic or whatever, I'd take that as them calling me silly/stupid/idiotic. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that--now folk know how to get at me. ;-)

The question is, can you not see the irony in your argument?  Your bolded statement "Don't you non-tither's see the absurdity of not tithing and giving to missions?," is actually accusing us of being silly.  

After all, the word "absurdity means  "silliness."

Maybe it is best for both tither, nor non-tither to cease using adjectives that demean

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could indeed visit the "law of first mention"...

It never fails, when teaching that tithe is a matter of the Law, someone is sure to argue it is not. (not saying anyone in this discussion said it was not Law)

Some will say that Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was BEFORE the Law, and then say that Abram’s tithe is the first mention of tithes in the Bible, and therefore, "law of first mention" should be employed.

If we go with the "law of first mention...

The first mentioned tithe, was not from monetary wages.  Nor was it from the benefits of the one who tithed. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, it should not come from monetary wages or benefits.

The first mentioned instance of tithing reveals that Abram tithed spoils of war… spoils that did not belong to him. He had promised God that he would not take any of the spoils as his own property.  Therefore, if law of first mention applies, those who tithe should promise God that they will give the rest of what they tithe from away.

Law of first mention? In first mention of tithes, Abram was 79 years old when he tithed to Melchizedek. Therefore, if law of first mention should apply, man should not tithe until he  has reached the age of 79 as Abram was.

Law of first mention? Abram did not tithe in the town he lived in. He tithed in the land of Canaan. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, tithes need to taken to the land of Canaan and given there.

Law of first mention? The tithe Abram gave to Melchizedek was from stolen items Abram recovered from kings he had killed in battle. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, the tithe should come from stolen items recovered after killing people… specifically, kings.

Law of first mention? Abram tithed in an open valley, not in a wooden or brick building called a church. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, tithes should be given in a valley… not in a church building.

Law of first mention? Abram was childless when he tithed to Melchizedek. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, those who tithe should not have any children prior to tithing.

Law of first mention? After Abram tithed, he gave the remainder of the items which he tithed from to a king of Sodom. Abram kept nothing of that which he tithed from for himself or for his family. Therefore, if law of first mention applies, the rest of that which is tithed from should be given to a king of Sodom. The one tithing should use nothing of that which he tithes from on himself or his family.

Law of first mention?  It was a man that tithed in the first mention of tithes.  Therefore, if law of first mention applies, only men should tithe.

Law of first mention probably shouldn't apply in the case of tithing.  LoL

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...