tithes - Hebrews

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

Concerning Hebrews

The whole point of the dissertation of Hebrews 7, in my opinion, is that
the law of the OT (this includes tithes) and priesthood ended because
Christ replaced them with himself. The law was imperfect and could not
bring perfection. It has been replaced by Christ with the new rules of
the NT. The Apostle is addressing people that understood Judaism so he
is using the argument that Christ is the new high priest. It is helpful
to read the whole chapter in another translation other than the KJV so
it becomes clear. However there are those that believe the KJV should be
used exclusively so I will use it in this opinion.

 HEB 7:1  For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high
God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and
blessed him;  

Melchisedec here is referred to as a priest and King.

2	To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem,
which is, King of peace; 
 
It is interesting to note that Abraham gave a tenth here and establishes
more credentials of Melchuisedec

3	Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;
abideth a priest continually. 

Melchisedec is given the role of priest forever

4	Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the
patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 

Notice again how the KJV even says a tenth of the spoils of war. This is
significant as later verses will make a distinction between tithe and
tenth.. The apostle is building a case for the greatness of
Melchuisedec.

5	And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the
people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they
come out of the loins of Abraham: 

Who has the command to take tithes? Not a preacher! The sons of Levi
only. Who are they to take the tithe from? Gentiles? Christians? No!
They are to take it from their brothers the Jews. Why wouldn't the
apostle make it clear here that the tithe was from the Christian also?
He has the perfect setting to do so. I believe it is because he was in
the process of showing that the priesthood ended and with it the law and
the law of tithes. He is laying the groundwork to make the case that
Jesus is the high priest.
The NLT says,"Now the priests, who are descendants of Levi, are
commanded in the law of Moses to collect a tithe from all the people,
even though they are their own relatives."

6	But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of
Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 

A non Jew getting Tithe from a Jew?  It would appear until we look a
little closer at this translation. 
The NIV says, " This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi,
yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the
promises."
The NLT says, "But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi,
collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon
Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God." 


7	And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8	And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth
them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.  

Who are the men that die that received tithes? The Jewish priests. Again
we can look at other translations and references to show this
The NLT says, "In the case of Jewish priests, tithes are paid to men who
will die. But Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told
that he lives on"
The point of the verse is not to say the apostles or preachers are
taking tithes (they weren't), but to indicate that Melchisedec is
greater than the priests.

9	And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed
tithes in Abraham.  

Abraham acted, and it was as if his decedents are credited with the act.
The NLT say," In addition, we might even say that Levi's descendants,
the ones who collect the tithe, paid a tithe to Melchizedek through
their ancestor Abraham." 
The RSV says, "One might even say that Levi himself, who receives
tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,"  

10	For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met
him   11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
called after the order of Aaron? 

The apostle is posing a question. If the priesthood and the law brought
perfection, why do we need another priest? It is a rhetorical question
that should not need an answer because it should be that obvious that
the priesthood and law did not bring perfection.
The NLT reads, "And finally, if the priesthood of Levi could have
achieved God's purposes - and it was that priesthood on which the law
was based - why did God need to send a different priest from the line of
Melchizedek, instead of from the line of Levi and Aaron?" 

12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law. 

The Apostle is saying the law changed because the priest changed. It was
a requirement! What law? It was the entire law - including the law the
apostle is using in his proof of Christ being the New Priest -the law of
tithes!
Even if I wanted to use these verses to prove the Apostle was requiring
tithes in the NT, and I don't, I would have to say he was establishing
Christ as the recipient, not the Clergy. The only way I could accomplish
this would be to give my tithe to the least of these as Christ says in
Mat. 25:40 - again not the clergy.
Some would argue for the clergy being the spiritual Levite so that under
the spiritualized law they could receive the OT tithe in the NT. If the
clergy wants to make that claim, I would point them to Galations and
remind them that if they partake of the law in part (the parts they
want) they will be judged guilty by all the law including the parts they
think are done away with. Why would we want to be bewitched into putting
ourselves under the law again as the Apostle asks?
In my opinion, Hebrews does quite the opposite of proving that the
Clergy has the right to require a tithe for themselves, but ends the
practice solidly with a new priest Christ Jesus.

Bruce Hanson
bruce.hanson@lmco.com