tithes in Gen

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> " They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.  Jesus saith
> unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of
> Abraham." John 8:39
>
> Why were the Pharisees not doing the works of Abraham?  Because they did
> not do the law in faith.
I'll just address this one conclusion. Abraham was not under the law, so
doing the works of the law cannot be the way to do the works of Abraham.
Secondly, Jesus commended the Pharisees for their faithfulness in tithing
elsewhere in the Gospels. Faithfulness in tithing therefore cannot be the
works of Abraham he was speaking of. This idea of following the "works of
Abraham" is getting blown out of context. Should we plan to sacrifice our
son, or send another out into the desert to die, keep a concubine, lie about
our wife's identity, live in a tent and keep cattle? Which "works of
Abraham" do we keep, and which do we ignore?

We read that Abraham had purposed not to profit by the battle or from the
unrighteous. As a sign of this he gave 10% to the priest-king Melchizedek.
We never read that he did this any other time, or that he had anyone to do
this to (i.e. another priest). We never hear directly of Melchizedek again,
or of anyone else giving him 10% of anything.

This concept of doing the works of Abraham to justify an enforced NT tithe
to the ministry of the church only works if we ignore 3 important points:

1. You read the Aaronic priesthood back into Abraham's day and equate it to
the NT ministry. The King of Salem only showed up once, and Abraham only
paid once. The idea of regular offerings to support the priesthood are a few
hundred years down the road. Abraham didn't support Melchizedek with that
money, melchizedek was a king. Abraham worshipped God with his giving. You
can't read these elements of the law back into the story and claim that
these elements predate the law. As far as the OT priesthood equating to the
NT ministry, I've dealt with this in two other posts, so I won't comment on
it further. Let's just say it does violence to the whole framework of the
Bible to adopt that concept, which is Roman Catholic in origin.

2. The words giving and offering are the only imparatives used for the
church. Nowhere are we told to "tithe". We are told to give, lay aside,
offer. We do follow Abraham's example when we do things this way. We give
joyfully as God leads and prospers out of a glad heart as an act of worship.
Why do we make the assumption that the only way to get people to give is to
make it a rule. If people don't give joyfully we need to examine our
situation (personally and in the assembly) to see why this is so. I've given
some rediculously high amounts of money relative to my means at times when a
spirit of joy was gripping my heart and God was using me as a vessel to
bless His work or an individual.

Paul says laws tend to bring out rebellion and nit-picking so why would we
lower his teaching on giving and offerings to another set of laws?

3. Those most noted for tithing in the NT are Pharisees. The Pharisee in the
temple praying, those Pharisees who were faithful in tithing herbs.
Legislation brings with it the potential to fall into legalism and
self-righteousness. I can check off my 10% and say done. I can check off my
3 services a week and say done. ETC. I can put myself in the position of the
rich young ruler, who I think was being truthful in his own mind when he
said he had kept all the commandments. By defining them as the Jews did, it
was possible to keep them. That is why Jesus raised the standard on the
Sermon on the Mmount.

When we follow God instead of just a set of rules, it is essential that we
hear his voice. Groups like the Mormons or the Amish prove it is possible to
have rules and standards and follow them without needing God's voice to lead
and guide.

Well, I went a little longer in this post than I planned to, but I don't
think the time was wasted.

Frank Vandenburg