Many today see the principle of tithes and offerings as still binding as a worship tribute to God. See that position being defended powerfully by SD Adventist Derrick Gillespie, and defended against the anti-tithing thesis of former SDA, Dr. Andre Hill. Its well worth the read, and you are encouraged to freely share!
Original Title
Tithing Remains Binding- Refuting Dr. Hill's Anti-Tithing Thesis
Many today see the principle of tithes and offerings as still binding as a worship tribute to God. See that position being defended powerfully by SD Adventist Derrick Gillespie, and defended against the anti-tithing thesis of former SDA, Dr. Andre Hill. Its well worth the read, and you are encouraged to freely share!
Many today see the principle of tithes and offerings as still binding as a worship tribute to God. See that position being defended powerfully by SD Adventist Derrick Gillespie, and defended against the anti-tithing thesis of former SDA, Dr. Andre Hill. Its well worth the read, and you are encouraged to freely share!
Tithes and Offerings: Applicable in the New Testament or Not?
A Refutation of Dr. Andre Hills Anti-tithing Thesis!!
By Derrick Gillespie Part 1- CRITIQUING DR. HILL REGARDING TITHING On Television Jamaicas Religious Hardtalk (aired Tuesday June 10, 2014) former SDA member Dr. Andre Hill gave a seemingly formidable and unanswerable case for non- obligatory tithing for the Christian, even while allowing for the Christian's obligation to give a generous free will offering as a "cheerful giver". Click link below to view his TV presentation:
To someone not very learned in the Scriptures, Dr. Hill's seemingly high powered discourse would be unanswerable, but like I always say, "things are not always" as they appear", and I declare he can certainly be answered and refuted, even if he chooses to reject the answer/refutation supplied (which would be his right and freedom to so do; even if he is wrong in doing so). His argumentation was seemingly high-powered but not foolproof, and I will here point out some simple things he seemed to have missed BOTH on public Television as well as in our subsequent discourses via email.
DR. HILL A POOR BIBLICAL GUIDE Dr. Hill is a poor guide to follow in interpreting the Bible on the matter of tithes and offerings, despite sounding rather scholarly, and this shows itself in several ways:
1. The first reason I find Dr. Hill a poor guide to follow is because of how he totally misrepresents certain passages of Scripture (both on television and in writing via email) despite the Bible has its own way of explaining the context of the passages involved. In a recent email to me (subsequent to his TV appearance) he wrote the following when I engaged him to show the fallacies in his presentation:
"...if you read 1 Cor. 16:2 and 2 Cor. 9:5-7 with care, you will see that it is obvious that Paul treated offerings in the church as money...there are general indications in Paul's teaching that he is avoiding the model of tithing and advocating a very different system of giving for the churches to which he writes. Paul states that giving is willing and not reluctant or by pressure (2 Cor.9:5, 7). He counsels Christians that they should decide how much to give (2 Cor.9:7)" Andre Hill (email)
Here Dr. Hill thinks (as led by misguided scholars he loves to quote) that Paul was speaking of general collection of monetary offerings at Church each week (the same fallacy of Sunday worshippers who often quote this 1 Cor. 16:2 text to defend Sunday worship), and yet he totally misses the context that Paul was dealing with an ongoing famine throughout the Roman empire at the time, and writing about the SPECIAL COLLECTION OF SPECIAL FAMINE "RELIEF" ITEMS ACCORDING TO EACH MAN'S ABILITY (WITH NO MENTION OF MONEY PER SE), and so Pauls utterances in his epistles to Gentile Christians at Corinth was in that context. Acts 11:27-30 totally refutes Dr. Hill's arguments about this being an explanation of the New Testament system of collecting monetary offerings at Church each week. Notice the background:
Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. Act 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth [famine] throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Act 11:29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Act 11:30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul [or Paul].
So when we read 1 Cor. 16:1-4 and 2 Cor. 9:5-9 (in fact the whole chapter) compared to 2 Cor. 8 (the entire chapter) we see clearly that Paul is still doing and addressing what the brethren had asked him and Barnabas to do, as seen in Acts 11:29, 30...collect relief items or bounty throughout the Gentile churches for the famine going on during the reign of emperor Claudius Caesar; nothing more. It is in that context Paul was making an appeal and speaking of "giving according to every man's ability" and God loving a "cheerful giver" in terms of their responding to the collection of relief items; and not necessarily money either. This is a totally different context and circumstance compared to what Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14 (read the whole chapter and see), where he brings up the principles of general material support for the Church's 'career ministers' and WITHOUT ABROGATING THE TITHES AND OFFERING PRINCIPLES show that the principle still apply in the gospel age. So to take these other expressions of Paul out of context (in 1 Cor. 16 and 2 Cor. 9) and say they were describing general collection of monetary offering at Church each week is totally misguided. Dr. Hill mixes up these different scenarios because of his poor reading of the Scriptures, and because of his desperate need to 'prove' his fallacious anti-tithing views to be biblical. But I will not be misled by his poor scholarship, and so I am pointing it out so others wont be misled. 2. Dr. Hill also failed to appreciate the very compelling point that the program host Ian Boyne made on Religious Hardtalk, that tithing as a principle seem to have originated before the Mosaic code and the covenant with Israel, and hence is not "Mosaic" nor are the underlying principles which makes tithing a worthwhile principle of material support for God's 'career' ministers limited to just the temporal nation of Israel. In fact, Paul, while personally and voluntarily choosing to not be married or be systematically supported by the Church (he was a tent maker and earned his own living), yet (just like how he theoretically supported marriage despite not being married himself; see 1 Tim. 3:2, 12) he reached into the very ancient system of tithing and free will offerings connected to the temple services and used that precise system and argued for the said principles applying to those who are 'career' gospel ministers. Listen to his words under inspiration to Gentile brethren at Corinth:
"1 Corinthians 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. "
We know Paul is here referring to the ancient principle of tithes and offerings because there was no other way the ancient temple priests at the altar were supported by Israel. Here Paul makes plain that just like the priests and Levites who were 'career' servants in the temple were supported by the Judaic system of "tithes and offerings" (see Mal. 3:8), "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the [Christian] gospel should live of the [Christian] gospel." In other words, the principle of tithes and offerings supporting those who anciently served the temple as "the Lord ordained", now applies also to "they which preach the [Christian] gospel". It is so plain, even a child with no biases and preconceived ideas would see it. You will notice my careful use of the word "principle" as opposed to saying "tithing system" when talking of tithing today, because I am fully aware that the often intricate ancient Levitical system of tithing, as it was carried out then in ancient Israel under the Mosaic code, is abolished with the ceremonial system itself; but not the underlying principle of tithing. Why? The same way the circumcision principle (i.e. heart circumcision) still remains, but not the initial method/system of flesh circumcision (see proof in Phill. 3:3 and Rom. 2:28, 29), this makes a big difference in my thesis about the principle of tithes and offerings today. The *principles underlying the ceremonial system still applies but realized in a new way, even with tithes and offerings, which were both mainly provisions from the land under the ancient system, but today applies mainly to monetary value (not only monetary value); the most common way to express wealth today. Notice carefully too that Paul plainly says "the Lord ordained" this principle of supporting career ministers to be so, and he never singled out the tithing aspect of the "tithes and offerings" principle seen in operation in Mal. 3:8 and abrogated it because it was now the New Testament times. So while Paul personally chose to regularly support himself as a 'career' gospel minister (1 Cor. 9:15-18), probably (in part) because of the ongoing famine and the difficulties many were facing at the time of the famine, yet he still argued for the principles in that ancient system which supported the 'career' ministers in the normal way. The Christian brethren usually freely supported the 'career' gospel ministers and the general church operation by free will offerings, evidenced with even Paul himself at times (see 2 Cor. 11:9), and they did this because they recognized their obligation to support 'career' ministers, as rooted in the ancient system of material support which Paul himself talked about in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14 (and indeed in the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 9). Can you imagine an obligatory free will offering? What a notion, some would say!
3. Dr. Hill also seem to not recognize that despite the New Testament did not specifically use the word "tithing" as it concerns 'career' gospel workers, yet the system was still going on among the Israelites all throughout Paul's life, since the temple was still standing up until his death anywhere between A.D. 62 and 68 (it was not destroyed by the Romans until A.D. 70). And with Jesus Himself personally lending support to the tithing system for the temple workers in his time (see Matt. 23:23), then it is required of Dr. Hill to show where the tithes and offering principle was abrogated before Paul died!! It cannot be shown, except by the use of speculative argumentation!! And it is a paltry argumentation that tithes are not explicitly commanded in the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a command to tithe, and nowhere do we see a command not to tithe, but since the apostolic Church had the principles of tithing being affirmed and spoken of positively in Pauls letter in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14, and in Hebrews 7 (which I will expound on in detail later), and since the Scriptures of the apostolic Church was primarily the Old Testament (i.e. before the entire Bible was compiled after the fourth century), then we know that tithing was never opposed by the apostolic Church in the Bible. The fact is that (just like the Sabbath) there is no explicit abrogation of the pre-Mosaic moral principle of tithing by Paul, in comparison to how he spoke clearly about the abrogation of circumcision and sacrifices, et al, even while the temple was still standing in his time. Despite the earthly temple no longer had any real spiritual significance after the cross, yet it took only the Roman destruction of it in A.D. 70 to totally discontinue the services that were taking place there. Thus the temple workers were still being supported by the tithes and offerings of the Jews up to the time of Paul's death before the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple. And notice, Paul alluded to that very system still in operation while he was alive (he used present tense language), and applied its principles to the Church without abrogating it in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14. That is quite irrefutable!!
Thus, despite it was only in the 8th century extra-biblical Church records show that it became popular for the Church Fathers to specifically name the "tithe" principle as a proper way to support the bishops, etc., yet it cannot be argued that it was only then that the issue came up among Christians. Not at all!! Paul, from the first century, already addressed the general principle in his letters to the Gentile brethren at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 12:2 with 1 Cor. 9:1-14), and he appealed to the ancient Judaic system that was a mixture of "tithes and offerings" for supporting religious ministers; explaining why Cyprian of Carthage (a third century church bishop of North Africa) could argue for the neglected tenth or tithing principle (in the third century) as minimum support for career ministers (even while recognizing the Levitical system/method of tithing farm products was abolished, as I also freely admit). So even if there is no specific Biblical record of tithe collection by earlier Church bishops yet that disproves nothing since [1] the absence of recorded evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence, and since [2] Paul never singled out any aspect of that "tithes and offerings" principle of Mal. 3:8 and explicitly abrogated it when he brought it up. On the contrary he argued favorably for the principle in general!! And not even Dr. Hill can overturn that glaring reality!!
Also, since the temple was still standing in Pauls time (within the early formative years of the Church), it could be Paul never wanted to create conflict with the existing Jewish temple system and its tithes supporting the priests as coming from Jewish converts to Christianity, and so simply spoke of the general principle of obligatory support for the Christian bishops (even while never disparaging tithes anywhere in his writings). Who knows whether after the transition period of the Church and the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple Paul (if he was still alive) would not have written more on the tithe issue specifically, now that the priests had no earthly temple in which to serve? We can only speculate on that aspect of the matter. Remember Paul died before A.D. 70.
NOTE: So far I have set the stage to show why Dr. Hill is a poor guide to follow on the matter of tithes and offerings. In the next section (*Part 2) I will show, while refuting his viewpoints in more detail, why the notion of tithing was common among the Near Eastern people (not just among the biblical patriarchs), and even before the Mosaic code; just as sacrifices, worship alters, priests, temples, et al, were not limited to or unique to only ancient Israels religion. I will also show why God codified tithing that existed before the nation of Israel, and also why tithing money today is applicable to support ministers in a non-agrarian setting of modern times, compared to tithing farm products for the priests and Levites in ancient Israel. I will also highlight other oversights by Dr. Hill. It will get even more interesting!! Part 2- CRITIQUING DR. HILL REGARDING TITHING Upon personally emailing Dr. Hill over the issue of tithing, he responded to me by saying [in part]:
"It is noteworthy that even scholars who believe in the principle of tithing observe that the New Testament does not in reality require the tithe of Christians. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians commanded to tithe. Such an important matter certainly would not have been relegated to the misty domains of the theological discourses of the New Testament Bible writers if indeed tithing is required of Christians." - Andre Hill
I replied [in part]: "That's an interesting thought, Andre [i.e. Dr. Hill], since I hear this quite often too from "scholars" as it concerns Sabbath keeping. It is often purported by "new covenant" anti-sabbatarian polemic that though the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament or the apostolic biblical records, its always in the context of the Old Covenant relationship with Jews, and no explicit command is given for it to be observed by Gentiles or Christians. And I find that this argumentation is presented often by even "scholars" who believe in the Ten Commandments and in the principle of observing a weekly sabbath period, but not the Sabbath!! I find this species of argumentation, and its similar application to the tithing principle, as being of the same species of sophistry, and it cannot stand up to the closest investigation. If that argumentation stands, Andre, as it concerns tithing, then it should also stand as it concerns Sabbath keeping, and you should also abandon Sabbath keeping to be consistent [*Dr. Hill continues to observe the Sabbath and Ten Commandments]. Or have you already abandoned Sabbath keeping too? As for "scholars" you like to quote, I don't need to spend a whole lot of time with the details of their polemic, since I am still of the opinion that "things are not always as they appear", and the most high-powered "scholarship" can still be wrong when we strip away all the details of its thesis.... I have challenged you and all these "scholars" you love to quote to do some things, and I wonder if/when you will be able to: 1. Show where the tithes and offering principle was SPECIFICALLY brought up for discussion and abrogated before Paul died, just like sacrifices and circumcision, for instance, and 2. Show where Paul ever SPECIFICALLY singled out any aspect of the "tithes and offerings" principle of Mal. 3:8 and abrogated it, in light of his polemic in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14.
Do that Andre and you'll have my attention!! The rest of your arguments are simply moot points, in my humble opinion, no matter how compelling they may be to you...."Scholarship" can be found to support all kind of things, and yet are not necessarily correct ultimately. For instance so much "scholarship" supports the abolishing of the Sabbath and the Decalogue, or supports the anti-Trinitarian or Unitarian position, or supports the notions that evolution theories are correct, or that God does not exist, et al, and yet demonstrably they are all wrong. Perspectives make the big difference. But let every man be convinced in his own mind, I always say. I am convinced you are wrong, and I am convinced the SDA position on tithing can be biblically supported. In my Part 2 critique I will develop the points a little more, but not to convince you, Andre, but to give the public another vista and to show that you can indeed be answered, and within reason. As you know, I always share with you whenever I am publicly critiquing your theses; all out of respect for you. As I said before I will be putting out Part 2 of my critique of your Religious Hardtalk thesis soon, and in it I will further develop some points for the public to see another vista. Kind regards Derrick" On Television Jamaica's "Religious Hardtalk" (aired Tuesday June 10, 2014) Dr. Andre Hill (among other things) made the following points (click link below to view it online again):
http://televisionjamaica.com/Programmes/ReligiousHardtalk.aspx/Videos/35573 1. Tithing was common to Middle Eastern culture, and involved paying taxes to kings, for instance; it wasn't just about returning tithes to God 2. Israel was commanded by God under the Old Covenant to tithe only farm products, and only farmers were to tithe, not everybody or every worker, and the poor were excluded, and so if we tithe today we should be doing the same (i.e. offering farm produce to God; not tithing money), and not everyone who is a full member of the Church should be tithing 3. The New Covenant abolished the system of obligatory tithing in favor of free will offerings alone for Christians who are Gentiles or non-Jews
RESPONSE and REFUTATION:
All the points Dr. Hill made showed serious oversights on his part; despite he did sound so "scholarly", and even gave program host Ian Boyne a hard time to counter his seemingly formidable points. These "oversights" I will demonstrate in this Part 2 critique of his presentation. First it must be recognized that no TRUE Christian who is a Gentile or Westerner or non-Jew can claim or lay hold on the "new covenant" of the Christian era and not properly realize it is *also a covenant with *Israel; just like the Old Covenant!! Hence to be TRULY "Christian" is to become a spiritual Israelite and share in the covenant with Israel (see Gal. 3:29 and 1 Peter 2:9, 10); even becoming part of the "nation" of Israel spiritually. This "new covenant" is NOT void of certain aspects of God's Old Testament laws carried over, since the "new covenant", as recorded in Hebrews 8:8- 10, says it isn't!! See the Scriptures just cited for yourself. Therefore, there are very many moral principles of the Old Testament which will be the very "laws" God will put in the heart of the willing and obedient Christian as part of the New Covenant. And remember, to break any part of a covenant renders one guilty of breaking the entire agreement. No wonder Christians are reminded in James 2:10-12 that if they break any part of the "law" (i.e. "the Law" having certain commandments which still applies) they are "guilty of all". How can this be, some may ask? Because God has brought over very many of his ancient moral laws and principles into the new covenant (Hebrews 8:10), and unless we see clear instruction or suggestion regarding a specific law of the Old Testament being abrogated, then Christians are obligated to observe those laws and principles. For instance, nowhere do we see laws against incest or bestiality specifically abolished, even though they are not re-stated in the New Testament (nor mentioned in Acts 15:28,29), and yet we can be assured they still apply. The same is true regarding the laws regarding offering God tithes and offerings to support the 'career' gospel ministers. That's why Paul could argue the way he did in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14 about tithes and offerings from the ancient Judaic system. Thus it is clear that in just the same way the CEREMONIAL METHOD of circumcision, and the ancient CEREMONIAL TYPE of sacrifices were abolished but yet still the underlying PRINCIPLES remain applicable in the new covenant (i.e. we must be circumcised in heart, and we must offer our bodies as living sacrifices to God, while Jesus is the 'substitutionary Lamb' in effect at this time), so too the principles of SUPPORTING GOD'S WORK through tithes and offerings may have changed their format of no longer being ground provisions and livestock, but is now through monetary giving. The principles remain the same!! And this now leads me to my second point. Secondly, it must never be forgotten that tithes and offerings being given to God, to support his ministers, the poor, and the general work of his cause CANNOT be just a principle applicable to ancient Israel. Why? Because not just the practical purpose of tithing and giving offerings is forever binding, but also the principle of the tithe was evident all over the ancient world (not just among God's people) long before the covenant with Israel. Now since many worship principles in the Bible seem to have pre-dated the Mosaic laws, and seem to have been passed down by oral tradition, then it is no strange thing to observe them among other ancient people as well, even if they did not specifically link them to the worship of the true God. Remember there was one common ancestry of people, who inherited from Noah and his family the true worship of God, and at the Tower of Babel various groups carried away memories of that initial system, but over time these memories often became overlaid with other notions and misrepresented the original purpose. The same way we see no specific pre-Flood command for practicing animal sacrifices, or specific instructions about the law of clean and unclean animals, and yet Noah and his descendants practiced this widespread ritual and also knew about clean and unclean animals long before Israel (see Gen. 8:20 and Gen. 7:2), the same is true with tithing. Both Jacob and Abraham (who just happen to be the patriarchs of the later nation of Israel) knew of the principle of animal sacrifices and tithing long before Moses (see why in Gen. 26:5), and since God purposefully codified these principles in written form among his people under Moses, then it is not foolhardy to think that God himself had ordained the principle of tithing (and not that it was an idea 'borrowed' from heathens), just as he ordained sacrifices to be part of his worship until fulfilled in Christ!! Why would God codify and see as "holy" the tithe (and a tithing principle) if it was just a concept borrowed' from heathens? It seems more reasonable God himself originated what he himself deems "holy". And so other ancients outside of Israel (from the common ancestry of Noah) also logically would have evidenced these primeval practices, even if they linked them to their false religions developed later or to other things in their culture, even as they lost knowledge of the true worship over time. And no "scholar", of even the caliber of Dr. Hill, can refute the above reasonable observations. But why would the ancient method of sacrifices (and circumcision), for instance, which pre- dated Israel, come to an end or be abrogated in the New Testament, but not the principle of tithes and free will offerings as seen in Mal. 3:8? This now brings up my third point. Taxes being paid to a king to forever show one's loyalty to him, or as an acknowledgement of being part of his domain, or as fulfillment of his wish to materially support 'career' ministers of his, these are principles that would apply for all time, as necessary. Thus, contrary to Dr. Hill's thesis, the tithes and offering principle seemed to have originated with God (the King of kings) for all his true subjects on earth; as a reminder that he gave them power to get wealth (see Deut. 8:17- 19), and that being part of his domain they should forever pay "taxes" to him in support of his cause on earth. Tithing one's gains (even when they are "spoils of war") was shown by Abraham to be a means of tax payment to the earthly priest-king of Salem (Melchizedek) who metaphorically stood in the place of God on earth (see Gen. 14:18-20 and Heb. 7:4); a principle we see also among God's people the Israelites as it relates to the King of heaven (i.e. paying tithes to an earthly priest/leader REPRESENTING God's leadership on earth). Jacob too pledged to tithe all his goods as recognition that God is his King!! See Gen. 28:22. And all this was long before the codifying of this early principle under Moses. Rather instructive!! Let me say before moving on (and in refutation of Dr. Hill) that, true, these stories recount either voluntary tithing on the one hand, or a bargain arrangement with God on the other, just as we would today say to God do this for me and I will serve and worship you forever. But it is plain that tithing, just like sacrifices and use of altars, and the role of priests was common to and part of true worship even before the Mosaic code (principles which continue even in the Christian age after the Mosaic code served its purpose). Serving God is an obvious duty of true worshippers, and demonstrating that service by way of worship rituals is a universal duty for all who are true people of God. And this is quite demonstrable from the very beginning, despite it was a primeval principle we never see commanded in Genesis (since Genesis or origins is not a book of laws/commands). The principles just happen to be seen common among the patriarchsproving it was passed down by oral tradition, and then later codified. But back to my main point!!
Now, will God ever cease to be King, and will we ever be outside of his domain, and no longer need to show respect to him by recognizing he gives the power to get wealth? Never!! Could the need of the poor and the material support of 'career' gospel ministers of God, or the material need of the work related to God's cause be just an Old Testament principle? Certainly NOT!! And upon these truths alone we can see why Paul NEVER abrogated the Mal. 3:8 principle when he spoke in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14. Now, Israel was instructed to tithe the produce of the land (crops, animals, etc.) because they were an agrarian or farming culture, and though they had and knew about money, yet agricultural produce was the greatest show and sign of wealth in those days (see Deut. 28:11, 12), plus the most immediate need of the poor and the 'career' minsters of the temple would be food or "meat"!! See Mal. 3:10. So it was practical or made sense to require tithe of the land (i.e. food mainly) to support these people. Today, wealth is more locked up in money (the medium of exchange) than before, and needs are more wide ranging for the poor, for the cause of God and his 'career' servants than just food (e.g. bills related to electricity, water, telephone, etc.), and so tithing money today (for supporting the aforementioned) is logical in a modern world. THE *PRINCIPLES OPERATING THROUGH THE TITHING OF MONEY TODAY WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, WHEN COMPARED TO EITHER THE TIME OF ABRAHAM, OR JACOB OR ANCIENT ISRAEL (TITHING FARM PRODUCE), EVEN IF THE CULTURAL SCENARIO CHANGED!! Allegiance would STILL be shown to God, the work of the Church could be supported, the ministers would be supported and the poor as well, i.e. as it concerns their wide range of needs in a modern world!! And since, apart from free will offerings given on occasions, the tithe is structured and more predictable as to what amount would be contributed by members, then greater plans can be made for the cause of God. It makes sense all around, and nothing in the New Testament can be pointed to absolutely outlawing the principle. Nothing!! In closing on Part 2, let me quickly highlight two other oversights of Dr. Hill. He seemed to forget that "offerings" (also called "sacrifices") in ancient Israel were also mainly farm produce (not just the tithe), and so to be consistent he should be also arguing that church "offerings" today should be farm produce mainly; not just the tithe!! But the apostolic church showed that they were comfortable working with money as "offerings" for the cause, just as much as they were with goods being given. Why would it be any different with the tithe? I guess Dr. Hill never thought of that, or he downplayed its significance!! Dr. Hill also argued that not all were tithing under the Old Covenant, and yet when God chastised Israel he chastised them this way: Malachi 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even *THIS WHOLE NATION". Was God misguided as to who he was referring to when he said "this whole nation"? Hmm. I wonder!! And by the way, remember that offerings were free will tributes, and yet (ironically) were obligatory in principle to the point where one could "rob" God of free will offerings if he fails to freely give what is voluntary to support his work. How much more the tithe which is considered the minimum one can give to God to show one's devotion to his cause? In addition, to argue that the tithe was an old covenant principle that could see a man robbing God in the ancient nation of Israel, but this does not also apply to the New Testament giving of free will offerings is to ignore the fact that Christians today are even called a holy NATION of spiritual Israelites (1 Peter 2:9,10), and that giving free will offerings was not just obligatory but also part of that covenant too (Mal. 3:8). And and so if that free will offering principle naturally came over and operates still in the New Testament, then so too the tithing principle; the minimum of giving to God to show ones allegiance as a holy nation and a royal priesthood. In summary of Part 2, let me say that I may not have all the answers to, or explanations for all the intricacies of the tithing system under ancient Israel (and I don't need to), but I am sure of the key issues, and I have shown Dr. Hill's overarching thesis points to be groundless!! In the end, the SDA Church's practice of requiring tithes and free will offerings in the form of money mainly is biblically sound and practical. Let me hereafter prove it even further, by expounding on the message locked up in Hebrews 7.
THE MESSAGE OF HEBREWS 7 ABOUT TITHING:
Before delving into the potent lessons about tithing in Hebrews 7, let me share my summary letter to Dr. Hill climaxing a series of discourses with him via email. I wrote: Dr. Hill, After carefully reviewing our discourses over the last few days (as well as your TV presentation) I am convinced you have been refuted because of the following reasons:
1. You CANNOT show one text decidedly abrogating tithing in the New Testament, and since the New Testament is filled with the apparent reality that not all binding moral principles have to be re-stated to be forever binding (e.g. binding anti-incest laws and anti-bestiality laws, and many more, are NOT directly restated but are forever binding), then we can see why 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 as it concerns the Old Testament Scriptures is critical to consider. To argue that something no longer applies because it is not re-stated or re- commanded is a foolhardy polemic and a slippery slope, since so many things can be shown to not be re-stated and yet remain applicable in principle. In addition, even things never commanded directly can be argued for in a 'prescriptive' way by appealing to foundational moral principles already in the Bible, e.g. smoking, or use of hard drugs, or masturbation, for instance, are never even named or mentioned or prohibited specifically, and yet you don't do these things Andre (as an obligation to demonstrate stewardship of health and purity, or you being a true worshiper) simply because of the inherent principles in the Bible that are opposed to these unmentioned practices. So its a weak polemic to talk about "not specifically commanded" as a prescriptive.
2. Just like the Sabbath that pre-dated the Mosaic code, tithing is a principle of worship (that's practical too) that was neither restated nor (even when brought up in 1 Cor. 9:13,14) directly abrogated as a command in the New Testament (and for obvious reasons already described), and so upon the basis of it already being biblically entrenched as both an ALREADY commanded prescription that was NEVER abrogated directly, as well as a described principle widely practiced by true worshipers both before and during the Mosaic code, then the principle CANNOT be shown to be unrelated to the Christian (who's a spiritual Israelite), except by employment of eisogesis and speculation.
3. Your arguments are littered with contradictions and misconceptions that have been pointed out and corrected, such as:
a] You trying to say Melchizedek was a pagan priest-king, and yet the Bible shows him [Gen. 14:18-20] to be a "priest of the Most High God", or of the same "Most High God" [El Elyon] of Abraham; explaining why the inspired writer of Hebrews modeled Jesus priesthood off Melchizedek to show its superiority. You have not yet given one ounce of evidence to prove you never contradicted the Scriptures in this regard, and YOU CANT!!
b] You trying to lamely say that since "tithes" was initially products of the land then we should be returning the same today as voluntary tithers, and yet "offerings" were likewise products of the land and yet you are not arguing the same way for MONETARY "offerings" today that you say should be given "cheerfully". Can you show me where the principle of "offerings" as products of the land were explicated in the New Testament to now be a transfer to MONETARY "offering" instead (just as you demanded for the principle of tithing today)? You CANT either, Andre, and so you are displaying inconsistent polemic and evidencing major oversights on your part...proving why you are a poor guide to follow.
THE REST OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ALL MOOT POINTS THAT DO NOTHING FOR YOUR CASE, AND SO I DON'T NEED TO EVEN ADDRESS EVERY ONE TO PROVE YOU AS ALREADY REFUTED!! I DON'T NEED TO LABOR THE POINT REGARDING THE OBVIOUS!!
And so I rest my case, and leave you to either stubbornly reject the truth and continue to idolize your own intellect or that of misguided "scholars", or allow the Holy Spirit to humble you to accept that you too can be misguided, and recant your misconceptions.
Same Derrick P.S. Today we MUST still offer sacrifices (our bodies as "living sacrifices"), today we must still have a substitutionary lamb (Jesus himself) to atone for sins, today we must still be represented by a Priest (Jesus as well), today we must still be purified (in heart and life), today we must still be circumcised (in heart), today we must still partake of emblems representing Christ (in the Communion), and today we must still be stewards of God's goods and time he entrusted to us by way of returning tithes and free will offerings and by way of observing his Sabbath. The PRINCIPLES of true worship have not disappeared, even when the scenario has changed under a new covenant. THAT IS WHAT MANY FAIL TO RECOGNIZE.
WHAT HEBREWS 7 TEACHES ABOUT TITHING: By Derrick Gillespie The Message of Hebrew 7 Like 1 Cor. 9:13, 14, the 7th chapter of Hebrews does not abrogate the principle of tithing, but rather affirms it under a superior priesthood, and indirectly it reminds the Christian of his material obligation to God by way of the story of Abrahams pre- covenantal demonstration of his allegiance to God via his *tithed material wealth or increase (even when theyre war spoils). Abraham gave to God via an ordained pre- Mosaic priesthood, and he gave within a structure of tithing already known, and, obviously with Gods laws already known (Gen. 26:5), he gave without even a codified system in place, or without coercion, but rather by a heart of full devotion and love. Hebrews 7 argues powerfully for the principles of the tithing system still being in place by it drawing on Gen. 14:18-20 and showing a number of things: 1. Showing that the priesthood now operating in the New Testament is after the order of Melchizedek, i.e. one SIMILAR to the pre-Mosaic priesthood and one that is superior to that of the Levitical system of ancient Israel, and making plain that it is the order in which Christ NOW operates as King and the ever living Priest (of the most High God). The New Testament era does not see a total abolishment of a religious priesthood, but rather a CHANGE of the priesthood to one that is superior or heavenly. In addition, what Gen. 14:18-20 reports was not treated as just "incidental" in the life of Abraham (as some "scholars" make out), but to the inspired writer of Hebrews it was of major significance, and hence he based his New Testament argumentation about Jesus' New Testament priestly ministry on its inherent lessons. For anyone to downplay that reality proves how misguided they are, and proves how much they prefer the word of extra-biblical "scholars" over and above even the inspired Bible writer. In addition, if Melchizedek was not a real pre-Mosaic priest ordained by the real "most high God" (or the same "most high God" of Abraham), but was just a pagan 'god-king', then why would God inspire a Bible writer to model Jesus' priesthood off a pagan character who had nothing to do with the true worship of God? 2. Melchizedek was a human character made to be like the Son of God (i.e. by the way the biblical record treats his life), and so if Abraham voluntarily showed respect to Melchizedek as the priest of the most high God, i.e. as a religious representative of God on earth in that time (since that is what a priest really was/is), then for Abraham to have *voluntarily paid tithes of his increase to Melchizedek who represented the priesthood and kingship of the future Christ (a priesthood that is not Mosaic), this shows that under the New Testament system that's superior to the Mosaic system, voluntarily tithing ones increase and paying it to the Priest and King after the order of Melchizedek is quite in order. Now, since Christ is not presently visible on earth, the only way to pay that voluntary tithe out of a heart of love is via his Church (his mystical body), with its members also vested with religious offices, as kings and priests, just like its supreme Head. And remember that today the work of God via the Church is no longer limited to just the borders of temporal Israel, but now encompasses the globe and is a larger spiritual Israel, and hence the material need is greater than ever before, and thus the structured principles of tithes and offerings are even more needed today.
3. What is plain from Hebrews 7 is that the tithe was common/known to both the pre-Mosaic order of priesthood, as well as the Levitical system of priesthood, except in the system after the order of Melchizedek it shouldnt need codification, but should be natural and voluntary from a heart of love. Never forget though that God still provides guidelines (even expressed as demands) as it concerns how we should live and worship him, even though he expects it to be a voluntary/natural obedience to his will. See 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. The same with the Church operating by written principles and coded fundamentals. Now, since Paul never abrogated the system of tithing when he spoke of it directly in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14, then we know it also features in the new order of priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, just as it did when Abraham and Melchizedek the priest-king of Salem typified it. But what is preferred is that it be voluntary from a heart of love, and not one of fear; just like obeying all the laws of God under the New Covenant (1 John 5:3). Notice carefully that under the New Covenant, Gods moral laws will be placed in the heart (Heb. 8:8-10), since they are not abolished (see Romans 3:31), and so the Christian shouldnt need to be compelled to tithe, just as Abraham was not compelled to tithe, but did it freely in Genesis 14 (having full knowledge of the tithing principle already in place), and did so even before he entered into a covenantal relationship with God by the outward rite of circumcision in Genesis 17. His heart was already circumcised spiritually even before the outward sign. The Christian also must operate by a heart circumcision that leads him to freely give to God, even willingly tithing all his increase as Abraham did, but ever mindful of the fact that he already had knowledge of Gods laws and expressed requirements to be followed in order to demonstrate ones devotion to him (Gen. 26:5). This is the same spirit of inward/heart circumcision and of free will giving which guided the apostolic Christians. No wonder we never see the apostolic Church being forced to tithe, and so it never became an issue demanding much discourse by Paul for instance, but it is quite plain the system of cheerful giving" to support the Church is NOT confined to the tithe, neither is it prohibited in the form of the tithe. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a command to tithe, and nowhere do we see a command not to tithe, but since the apostolic Church had the principles of tithing being affirmed and spoken of positively in Pauls letter in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14, and in Hebrews 7, and since the Scriptures of the apostolic Church was primarily the Old Testament (i.e. before the entire Bible was compiled after the fourth century), then we know that tithing was never opposed by the apostolic Church in the Bible. THE ABSENCE OF EXTRA- BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF TITHING AMONG CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE FOURTH CENTURY IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, SINCE WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES THAT CAN BE SHOWN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF!! With all this in mind it is plain that no Church today can be faulted for using the principles of tithes and offerings evident in the Scriptures to guide its members, and since tithing is simply a minimum of what should be given to God to support his work, then its only a heart of selfishness that seeks to argue against the tithe simply because it wasnt explicitly commanded in the New Testament. That is sophistry of the highest order, and is similar to those who want to do away with the Sabbath simply because there is no explicit command to observe it in the New Testament. Yet, when we consider the New Testament carefully, we see it is not totally void of the principles of observing a memorial (since we have to observe the memorial of the Lords Supper, for instance), neither is it void of rituals (since we have to observe the ritual of baptism), and so just like the Sabbath (that pre-dated sin, "shadows", Moses and Israel) being still valid as a memorial of God as Creator from the very beginning (see Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11), so is tithing and free will offerings (which also pre-dated Moses and Israel) still valid as a means of showing our allegiance to God. 4. If the priesthood of the Christian era, i.e. as vested in Jesus after the order of Melchizedek, is superior and ultimate, then we are compelled to accept that all of the priesthood under the Mosaic code was just foreshadowing it, and in fact the REAL elements of this superior/ultimate priesthood AS IT CONCERNS TITHING is best typified by what happened with Abraham's experience with Melchizedek. Why? Because we see in the story of Melchizedek the uniting of the roles of kingship and priesthood that is inherent in Jesus as the ultimate Priest and King, and this unity of roles was not fully evident before in the Levitical priesthood.
5. Since the inspired writer of Hebrews 7 makes plain that the actions of Abraham symbolized how the entire nation of Israel via Levi was to relate to Christ, the ultimate Priest-King, i.e. in Levi symbolically paying tithes to Melchizedek through being in Abraham's loins, then we can see now know why the entire Church (with all members today equally considered as "priests") is expected to tithe in principle. Under the ancient system, the Levites would return a tithe of all the tithes to God, and it was this ultimate tithe that represented the entire NATION of Israel returning a tithe to God (even when anciently some, like the poor, could not tithe due to material lack). Thus God could truly accuse the "whole NATION" of Israel "robbing" God of "tithes and offerings" in Malachi 3:8, especially if the Levites kept back the tithe of the tithe, or even if any part of Israel (who could pay) failed to return the tithes and offerings. Leadership was representative of the whole group (a principle seen all over the Bible), and also Israel was seen in God's eyes as "one" (sometimes represented as even one person; Deut. 32:9-18) and so what the Levites did on behalf of all Israel, they did as a "shadow of things to come", and this indicates precisely the point am making here. Abraham, the patriarch of Israel, paid tithes to Melchizedek who was representative of Christ's ultimate priesthood, and Levi, the father of the tithe-paying class of priests, by *metaphorically paying tithes through Abraham showed the obligation of all Israel to show 'material allegiance' to the ultimate Leader or King. Today, all members are so one with Christ (the Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek), that every member is likewise called "kings and priests", and so the Church is indeed legitimately vested with that representative authority to receive tithes and offerings for God's cause.
6. With the Church having all its members being spiritual "priests", then I can see why, just like Abraham (who was nomadic) and like the Levites who had no land inheritance, today Christians who are "priests" are depicted as "pilgrims" with no earthly country (i.e. with no ultimate land inheritance on earth as yet), and thus (through the Church's leadership structure) can receive and benefit from tithes and offerings in terms of the financing of the work of God. Even this reality of the Church's future "oneness" with the ultimate Priest-King and receiving and consuming/utilizing the tithe of all material wealth was foreshadowed in normal Israelites on occasions given the freedom to ritually partake of the tithe themselves in Deut. 14:22-26. To someone not having the eye- salve of the Holy Spirit as guide, this may seem strange that the normal Israelite was asked to "eat the tithe" (whether as products of the land or as was converted to money on occasions), but every "shadow" under the Mosaic system had a corresponding reality under the ultimate priesthood of Melchizedek. Today, unlike under the Mosaic code, ALL spiritual Israel (i.e. the organized Church cooperatively) are of the priestly class, and so has the RIGHT to receive the tithe for the Churchs utilization (through its bishopric or leadership), as well as it has the OBLIGATION to return the tithe, as the priestly class did under the Mosaic code, and return it to the highest religious authority, the High Priest (which in this case is Christ himself, the PRIEST-KING operating after the order of Melchizedek).
All of the above described is made plain via the chapter of Hebrews 7, but especially when lined up with other Scriptures so that a clearer picture can be seen. This then underscores why the writer of Hebrews was inspired to highlight the major significance of Abraham's experiences with Melchizedek, since it was a typifying of the ultimate reality of the priesthood of Christ and His Church today, and long before any Mosaic code was in place; a ceremonial code that was just to be a passing shadow of greater things to come. And remember, a shadow indicates a reality it prefigures, and so no shadow of the Levitical system could exist that has no corresponding reality today, and this includes tithing. Hebrews 7 is a total rebuke to those opposed to the binding principle of tithing for the Christian, the "priest" who is one with Christ, the ultimate King prefigured by Melchizedek.
- THE END - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malachi 3:8-10 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse
APPENDIX: Here's further proof of how misguided Dr. Hill is on the principle of tithing:
1. Dr. Hill feels tithing was just about providing material support for the poor and temple workers or priests, and yet he totally missed the significance of even the priests/Levites themselves returning a tithe of all the tithes given (Numbers 18:26-32). By priests returning tithes (despite they were NOT farmers or land owners) it is self-evident tithes wasn't just about supporting the poor or priests, but MORE IMPORTANTLY it was about showing allegiance to God, and so the priest themselves had to do it too, despite what they gave as tithes would NOT be going to support anyone else...since they were only allowed to eat the remaining portion of all they got from the people!! This further refutes Dr. Hill's faulty argument that only farmers were to tithe, since the Bible itself shows that once one has in his possession products of the land he was to tithe it. Thus it becomes obvious why God could accuse the "whole nation" of Israel of robbing him of tithes and offerings in Mal. 3:8,9 because everyone would have to acquire products of the land (since everyone had to eat farm products), whether they be farmer or not, or whether they acquired farm products either by purchase or by barter trade, and those products of the land had to be tithed to show one's allegiance to God (just like the priests themselves had to tithe).
2. Dr. Hill misses the significance of the priests performing what was a "shadow of things to come" by they themselves returning a tithe, despite not being farmers or not even owning land. Anything the priests did was a "shadow" of a greater reality to come, and if they tithed, then with a change of the priesthood (not an abolishment of all priesthood), then we can see why tithing remains a principle that Paul never abrogated when he brought it up in 1 Cor. 9:13, 14. If Paul had abrogated the principle entirely, then the "shadow" would have existed but no reality to be met in the new era. That's impossible!! But by the ceremonial "shadow" of tithe payment by all priests/Levites, and by the ceremonial "shadow" of the normal Israelite being asked to consume the tithe on a special occasion, as seen in Deut. 14:22-26, we know that the principle or reality it points to REMAINS in the new era; just as the principle of circumcision (of heart), atoning sacrifices, mediatory priesthood, one's allegiance to God and stewardship of time and wealth all REMAIN applicable, but realized in a new way. That is why Cyprian of Carthage shows plainly in the third century that the principle of tithes applied to the ONGOING monetary support of the ministers/clergy operating as if they were priests at the altar receiving products of the earth. THE PRINCIPLE WAS STILL IN FORCE, AS PAUL MAKES PLAIN IN 1 COR. 9:13,14.
Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.