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:

http://televisionjamaica.com/Programmes/ReligiousHardtalk.aspx/Videos/35573

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.

(Email: ddgillespie@live.com; Webpage: https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)