Re: TITHING

BRO GILLING,

After much talk , in the form of what you would deem a “rebuttal” from you, your view
opposed to tithing remains unconvincing, opinionated, and is ultimately your view that remains
simply that…YOUR VIEW! You failed to do a number of things:

1. You failed to prove that tithing was always food or farm produce, and all you proved was
that for the time of the Levites it was food FOR THEM. The fact that tithing was a well known
principle and practiced BEFORE the Levites, it made it plain from the Bible itself that it’s NOT
ONLY LEVITICAL in scope (see again Genesis 14:16-24 and Genesis 28:22). Since you could not
disprove that reality, you skirted around that inescapable Biblical realty and its implications and
downplayed it as just some “one time tithing event” in the lives of Abraham and Jacob...despite
the Bible point blank said Abraham gave “TITHES” (PLURAL) of ALL”, indicating clearly it was not
a “one time event”, since the word “tithes” in the plural always indicate either a recurring
practice, or multiple source of the offering. Who says Abraham did not repeatedly give a tithe
of “all” to Melchizedek who lived in the area that Abraham occupied, considering that if it was a
“one time tithing event” there would be no need for the word “tithes” in the plural. And didn’t
Jacob promise in Genesis 28 (read the whole chapter, but especially verses 20-22) that
whatever God blesses him with (food, clothing, etc.) he would have given “a tenth” or “tithe” of
“ALL” of it to God? Was Jacob’s blessing only a “one time event” and did the blessing only
involve food? Wasn’t the blessing spread out over all the days of his life thereafter (i.e. after he
repented of his wrongs and recognized his birthright) and included a wide array of material
blessing? Bro Gilling, if you are honest you will see it could NOT have been a “one time event”
thing at all for either Abraham or Jacob, as misguided critics of tithing have misled you to
believe. You are free to do all the downplaying and ignoring of what the Bible actually reports in
order to support YOUR OWN PERSONAL PERSPECTVE, bro Gilling, but it matters me none, since
it does not prevent me from having a totally different Bible-based perspective than yours. At
the end of the day every man must be true to what he sees for himself in Scripture; not what
another’s opinion thinks it sees.

2. I asked you to show one Scripture that specifically brings up tithing itself specifically and
abolished it, and that you also failed to do. You only brought an ASSUMPTION that because
the Levitical priesthood was abolished then tithing itself is abolished. False association and
unbiblical conclusion drawn. Why? Simple. The Bible simply says there was A CHANGE OF THE
PRIESTHOOD AND A CHANGE IN THE LAW RELATED TO THE PRIESTHOOD (Heb. 7:12-17); not
an abolishing of all priesthood and all laws governing priesthood. And what priesthood is now
in place? The Genesis 14: 18-24 type priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7)
….the very type of priesthood that’s SUPERIOR to the Levitical priesthood, and one which
IRREFUTABLY INCLUDED TITHING practiced by Abraham the father of all Israel (i.e. the father of
literal and spiritual Israel), and whose “seed” we are today as Christians (see Gal. 3:29). If
tithing was not seen as a precedent under the Melchizedek-type priesthood ---a priesthood that
is now BIBLICALLY fully in place and replacing the Levitical system (i.e. after Jesus came to
earth, and after he is now himself the true sacrificed Lamb being offered, and after he was
installed as priest in heaven after the order of the Melchizedek type priesthood; Heb. 5:1-10)---
then I would have no ground on which to stand to defend the tithing principle in my SDA
Church. But I do, Bro Gilling, despite all your personal OPINION and inconclusive verbiage
denying it. What tithing principle was practiced by Abraham my spiritual father (Malachi 2:10)
who I must pattern as a commandment keeper (Gen. 26:5) and true worshipper? One which
gave tithes of ALL “goods” in his possession or ALL his material increase, including war spoils
(which was not just farm products; Heb. 7:4)….and that “ALL” from which he gave a “tenth”
means simply that… “ALL”. And a reading of the entire chapter of Genesis 14 shows that
Abraham’s type of tithing had him giving not just a non-structured free-will offering but rather a
structured “tithe [tenth] OF ALL” from a heart of love for God who gave him commands related
to true worship (Gen. 14:20; Gen. 26:5). I am of the view, based on the Bible, that if I pattern
Abraham’s faith and practice in this regard and freely tithe “ALL” I happen to possess at the
time then as his “seed” (Gal. 3:29) I cannot be at fault. If you want to do otherwise that’s your
personal freedom, but I will “err on the side of caution”; NOT err while refusing to pattern my
father Abraham, and refusing to see that the priesthood now in place after the order of
Melchizedek is and was one which included tithing of “ALL” in honor of God. Jacob, or Israel,
the son of Abraham, as soon as he decided to repent of his sins in Genesis 28, and reform his
life what do we see? Him also giving a “tenth of ALL” (notice, “of ALL”). Under the Levitical the
priesthood the “law” and “commands” had only farm products tithed AT THAT TIME, but under
the Melchizedek priesthood, with it’s CHANGE of the “law”, it obviously involves a tithing of
“ALL” of one’s “goods” or all material increase…not just food (THAT’S A “CHANGE” IF I EVER SEE
ONE).

3. You failed to show in Paul’s specific reference to the tithes and offering principle in 1 Cor.
9:13-14 where he singled out tithing and abolished it. And I daresay you CANT show it either!!
Paul knew that all Israel was the vehicle for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (in word and
lifestyle) ever since that nation existed, and yet he focused ( in a one to one correspondence)
only on the gospel LEADERS in the church as to who should “live of the gospel”, since,
correspondingly, only those who were LEADERS in the ancient temple were “partakers of the
altar” (or what was given as offerings by the people). To ignore that reality, and the reality that
it’s the LEADERS in the gospel ministry today who officiate in the sacraments of communion,
baptism, weddings, etc., is to prove that you cherry pick aspects of the Bible to suit your newly
acquired perspective that opposes tithing….since that’s the only way it can work for you,
obviously!
Since “the Lord” is not just Jesus as a man, but Jesus as Jehovah God (“the Lord [Jehovah] God
from heaven”; I Cor. 15:47) then I cannot argue, as you shortsightedly do, that when Paul says
in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 “EVEN SO” (or in like manner, or in just the same way) “the Lord has ordained”
that they which “preach the gospel must live of the gospel”, that this was only related to Jesus’
words on earth (as a man) to his leading disciples in Luke 10 (i.e. the 70 sent out from among
his many hundreds of then followers). The “gospel” is “everlasting” (Rev. 14:6) ever since man
sinned, and was as much preached by ancient Israel as well as by modern spiritual Israel. It was
even preached by Abraham, and Jacob long before the Levitical system, it was preached by
Melchizedek as “the priest of the most high God” (as a matter of fact it was preached by God’s
people in every age before and after Abraham). So that “ordained” principle by Jehovah or the
Lord himself (with Jesus himself as Israel’s God or “the Lord”) it always had in focus the
LEADERS in the preaching of the gospel needing material support…. just like Melchizedek did,
just like the sent out apostles (or leading disciples) did, and just like LEADERS today in the work
of the ministry do as they operate under the SUPERIOR priesthood now in place (i.e. after the
order of Melchizedek that included tithing to materially support the leaders). And that
“ordained” principle includes BOTH tithes and offerings!! When Jesus sent out the LEADING
seventy in Luke 10, his own Levitical system set up by him as God (“the Lord”) was still
legitimately in operation, i.e. the priests in the temple receiving material support in the form of
food that was tithed. His disciples sent out at that time were supported in the form of free will
offerings of food as they entered and stayed at whatever house they chose. Both scenarios
were in operation, and Jesus did not abolish or override/overshadow the Levitical system by
way of his disciples while here, neither did he abolish either the tithing or offering principle
while on earth.

But obviously, it’s only years later after what occurred in Luke 10, that with his death on the
cross, and he being later installed as Priest in heaven (after the Melchizedek order) it would
naturally see one temple system transitioning to the other (i.e. focus moved from the
priesthood in the literal earthly temple, to the heavenly, and the spiritual temple of the church),
and it would then see a CHANGE of the priesthood, and a reverting to the principle where tithes
included tithing “ALL” material increase (Gen 14:20; Gen. 28:22) to support the spiritual leaders
(not just tithing food or farm produce). And why would there need to be a wider scope of what
was tithed? Simple. The gospel would go to the globe thereafter (not just operate among Israel
as a literal nation) and as the world advances from agrarian economies to industrial ones as we
do have today, the material needs of leaders in the gospel ministry and of the poor is much,
much more than just food (but now today include bills of a wide variety, e.g. water, electricity,
telephone, gas, groceries, education, etc.). Now I am convinced that God is practical and
foresees everything, and would have taken into consideration the fact that the needs of leaders
would change as the centuries roll by. Hence the Melchizedek type priesthood now in operation
involving tithing “ALL”, i.e. “all”, which would include money that’s the dominant source of
value and material increase these days, that Melchizedek-type system is now wisely in place to
accommodate the changed needs of leaders in the gospel ministry. Deny it and oppose it all you
want, bro Gilling, but it is biblical, whether you like it, or it appeals to you or not.

4. You failed to recognize the interesting fact that “offerings” to God in the Bible at times
encompassed tithes as well (whether the Abrahamic and Jacobic type offering in Genesis, or
the Levitical type thereafter), and all “offerings” to God were either farm produce (plant or
animal matter), money or other material “goods” of value. In the New Testament we see
“offerings” to God’s cause including all of the above described, and to single out tithes as
abolished, but argue for “offerings” involving money is kinda shortsighted, since in the New
Testament (during Jesus’ earthly sojourn and after) we see all in operation, and the very word
“offering” is a ceremonial-related word drawing on ancient worship, priesthood and temple
typology that included tithes; i.e. tithing of “all” operating long before there was even a temple
or a Levite. One cannot use the biblical word “offering” and it would exclude tithes, because the
very word includes it, since a tithe is/was a type of “offering”! I know this to be true after doing
an exhaustive check of the ways the Bible uses the word “offering”.

5. You failed to represent my thesis accurately. I noticed, bro Gilling, that you chose to twist
my own words to suit you, but the best person to tell you what my words mean is me; not
you. You tried to pass off the misguided conclusion that I myself agree that tithing is
abolished, yet nowhere did I say that in my document sent to you! I was careful to explain in
my document that the Levitical system of tithing as connected to THEM was abolished, but
NOT the principle of tithing that featured in the Melchizedek-type priesthood that’s superior to
the temporary Levitical system; with Paul even arguing that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in
the “loins” of Abraham as proof of the superiority of that type of priesthood. And so, as I was
repeatedly careful to point out, with that order of superior priesthood now in place even as you
read these words of mine, it most assuredly includes tithes; it does not and cannot exclude
it….since a change of the priesthood does not mean an abolishment of all priesthood. Church
history records over the centuries do show Christian bishops/leaders accepting tithes in the
form of money (3rd and 8th century), just as church history records show churches observing
the biblical seventh-day Sabbath over the centuries. So it’s no new invention by SDAs today to
collect tithes of “all”, including tithes of money if that’s only what’s available as the dominant
form of material increase. Bro Gilling, try as you might, the SDA position has validity, and you
CANNOT disprove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. You cant!! Period!
If you want to wake up on Judgment day, and discover you erred, and despite warnings you
trampled on the tithing principle that’s after the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek, would
it be worth it, when you can simply “err on the side of caution” and, like Abraham, give God
“tithes of ALL” out of a heart of love….the bare minimum (of one tenth) to support leaders in
the gospel ministry? Would it be worth it to discover then (when it’s too late) that you were
wrong to believe that, as you expressed, Mrs. White is correct in so many other things, but, as
you now feel, as one blessed by the “Spirit of prophecy” ministry she was wrong on the tithing
matter for so many years and God did not correct her? Would it be worth it to today deny that
“in the multitude of counsel there is safety”, and stubbornly refuse to unite with your brethren
in this matter, including heeding Mrs. White’s “Spirit of prophecy” counsels on the validity of
tithes today, and instead follow your own personal shortsighted opinion that’s, at best, faulty,
shortsighted and inconclusive, and at worst is outrightly denying and trampling on the very
principle seen in the system of priesthood after the order of Melchizedek; an order that’s now
in place?
In the end, Bro Gilling, your decisions remain yours, you have the right to your opinion, and the
freedom to live as you see fit. I will respect your decision to abandon tithing and to remove
yourself from the SDA membership. I will love you just the same, but I pray you wont have to
find out the hard way (in the Judgment) that you were wrong, despite warnings!!

P.S. I will in no way try to be God to determine why some local tithe paying SDA churches
have difficulties finishing church buildings, et al. The reason can be wide ranging. You can
speculate all you want re the reason for them struggling, but that’s just you speculating. I see
the inspired bible writer David in the Bible saying that he never saw “the righteous forsaken” or
God’s “seed begging bread” (Psalm 37:25), and yet we still see some of those very people of
God being among the poor and literally begging bread that God’s system took care of (i.e. God’s
system set up for administering to the poor among his own people). Should I then assume that
those of the poor who begged bread were not “righteous”, or were not God’s “seed”, or they
were “forsaken”? And likewise, should I assume that all tithe paying Jew of old literally did not
have room to hold the material blessings of God, and that all of the “blessing” promised would
only have to be material, and not spiritual as well? I would be simplistic and presumptuous to
so do. I will not join you to speculate that because some tithe paying SDA churches struggle it’s
because God did not promise a blessing to them for returning tithes. That’s sitting in the seat of
God to determine every circumstance and the “whys” of it, based on my limited human
perspective.

Finally, in no way could my document (entitled “Tithing Remains Binding”) answer your
question/theory about SOME struggling tithe-paying SDA churches (a question you asked just a
week ago), when it is plain my document was written years ago to directly address Dr. Andre
Hill who appeared on Television Jamaica’s “Religious Hardtalk” program as a dissident SDA (in
doctrinal matters) like yourself, and it was not so much meant to address you personally. It was
a document simply forwarded to you as it was *originally written before I even met you!!