Featured What Do You Base The Tithe On?

Interesting, this is the first I have heard of the church being established pre-pentecost. Not that I agree, but can understand your reasoning now.

 

Many years ago, when I was in a College-Career class, there was one guy who was a student-- a fulltime student, I think-- who had an apartment and worked different jobs and different days and hours, so he was in class about only once every 4-5 weeks. He usually gave money-- cash-- when he did come. More than once he just put his cash in our 'record box,' and refused anyone's suggestion that he put it in an envelope with his name, for security of the money as well as to have documentation for a tax deduction. He refused, saying he was an advocate of separation of church and state, so one shouldn't have anything to do with the other. So I asked him once why he didn't get whatever deduction from his contributions that he could, and then give that the church, too-- or else he must care more about the state than the church. He looked as if he didn't even understand what I was asking and said nothing.

The above story is not directly about tithing, but it does concern basing one's giving on gross or net income. It seems to me if you consider your tithe [or contribution] to be tax deductable, then the tax should be tithe deductable; thus, giving should be based on net instead of gross. And especially for the self-employed, who must file on gross and expense, and base personal income on drawing, or that loan trick [I once kept books for a landscaper whose accountant showed them that], this makes sense.

One more point... during those same years I referred to, I was working at a factory which on occasion passed around a box, with a slip cut in the lid, for employees to make contributions for fellow employees who are recovering from surgery, have an injured family member, et al. One time an employee was in such a situation, and her best friend put in a 50 dollar bill (where most put in a dollar; rarely more than 5), and by the time the box had made the rounds and was opened for whoever in her own line was going to count it, that 50 was gone. I don't know whether she had let too many people know about her 'extra' gift for a close friend, or maybe it was less common than we knew for an opportunistic thief to quickly stick fingers under the lid and grab some loot. But that's another reason it's not a good idea to give cash where that can happen. Churches not exempted-- although...well, different story.

 

Web, , I think I'll start a new thread on this subject. I don't think we ought to derail this thread.

I'll try to get it going sometime this weekend.

 

The tithe is part of the ceremonial law. It was abrogated, when the Temple and the priesthood that it supported was abrogated.

If you think that the "tithe" (even though there wasn't just one tithe, but multiple) is still in effect, do you also acknowledge that this use of it, by the individual, is still legitimate?

Deu 14:22 "You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year.
Deu 14:23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
Deu 14:24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there,
Deu 14:25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses
Deu 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.


Check. Sell your tithe of grain, if your not going to eat it, and have a big drinking party in God's honor.... :thumbs:

 

The tithe was not part of the ceremonial law alone because it predated the law.

Jesus said in Luke 11:42
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

Since the NT never SAID to do away with it, we ought to assume that it is present today just as we assume that idolatry is still a sin today.

 

Yes, it was. It is found right along with the dietary restrictions and commands regarding sacrifice. Circumcision also predated the law, BTW.

But no, never in the Old Testament was there a COMMAND to give 10 percent of a person's income to the Levitical priesthood, before the beginning of the law. Abram chose, freely, to give 10 percent of his returned gains to Melchizidek, but this was not commanded anywhere, and hence was not apart of the law.

Yep. Jesus also would have told them they shouldn't eat pigs, and they should circumcise their children. What He NEVER would have told them, though, is to give a tenth of their monetary income. He told them they should tithe of their crops (Dill and mint and cumin). Not of their money.

#1 The tithe isn't money. So what would you have me tithe? Sermons? #2 Paul did indeed give us the CHRISTIAN criteria for giving. He told us to give whatever we have purposed in our hearts.

If your tithe grain, you also need to be consistent and circumcise your children, and abstain from certain meats, and you also need to be working to to get the temple, and the levitical priesthood, which is who you take the tithe to, reinstated...

 

Check. Next time we plunder a city, kill all the people, and take all the spoils, we'll find the nearest priest and give him a tenth of our loot. As with Abraham, all this is under grace.

I assume idolatry is a sin-- still a sin, if you prefer-- because New Testament scripture says so, and it even compounds the meaning of idolatry to include 'loving good things of this world.' Considering that, it can be hard to see how idolatry is not involved in the giving/tithing/supporting question. It can be idolatry to contribute nothing or very little, but churches making a demand to tithe, and double tithe, and so on, are wanting what? preachers and music and other ministers with with postgraduate degrees, a good presence, good voice, that know how to 'sell' the church; along with elaborate buildings and decor, acres of parking, gymnasiums,... The apostles and the early churches certainly did without all these; they're 'good things' of our time. When churches tell members the members are not trusting God if they withhold their tithes, then the church ain't trusting God by its pleas and threats to get it.

 

That would be very good of you.

If we have to go to war with Iran and we have to take that nation and the unlimited energy resources flood the American economy- I hope you WILL tithe on the portion that falls to you.

I am very glad to hear that you plan to.

Excellent!!

Same author for both testaments. If he didn't like something in the Old, he hasn't changed his mind about it in the New.

You are creating a false dichotomy.

If you did not HAVE access to a NT all your born days and only knew the rudimentary parts fo the NT Gospel- you ought to obey the commands of God that come from his moral law.

I cannot IMAGINE why a CHRISTIAN would want to abrogate MOST of his Bible.

Blessings are promised dozens upon dozens of times in the Bible to those who LOVE THE LAW OF THE LORD, those who KEEP IT, those who MEDITATE UPON IT DAY AND NIGHT.

There is NOTHING!!! Nothing!!! in the NT that says we ought to change our feelings toward the law of God which expresses the holy nature and character of the God we say we love.

That's not true. The early church did NOT do without these things. Many had large sums of money. Others, like Apollos were EXTRAORDINARY orators renowned for their eloquence.

Or... they are just preaching the BIBLE...


that part you have cut out and tossed aside.

Antinomianism is really, at its core little more than dualistic gnosticism.

 

So is the moral law found along side those restrictions. Yet, as a reformed person who does not embrace the scourge of dispensationalism you still think we ought to cherish and embrace the moral law. So you see that you do not have an argument in that point.

Circumcision was not done away with- it was REPLACED. It was replaced with baptism. You'll recall that Paul told us that in Colossians.

To GOD... that is enough. Whether it is through Melchizedek or the Levites or the NT local church- it is still a tenth GIVEN TO GOD. Whose hands it passes through to get to God does not change the continuity of the tithe throughout the Bible being that it goes to GOD.

The command is to give a tenth to GOD.

The money distinction is without merit. Wealth comes in many forms. Stocks, bonds, gold, silver, and yes dill and mint.

The point is that you be sure to give at least a tenth of what God blesses you with to GOD.

It is wealth... whether in the form of paper or cattle is absolutely irrelevant.

My kids are circumcised but that is beside the point. More importantly they are baptized.

Civil law... clearly.

to the ecclesia

As in every age- TO GOD.

 

Apparently he didn't like circumcision, then, since he required it in the OT, but in the NT said if you do it you must follow the whole law or Christ is no benefit to you. And "changed his mind?" That's a hard one.... scripture says he's an unchanging God-- but then, if he can't change his mind, then he can't do all things, as scripture also says. Which should it be?

 

He CAN'T do all things.

That was easy.

He can't sin.

He can't be less than God.

There may be a BILLION things that God cannot do.

Omnipotence doesn't mean the ability to do anything. It means that all power is his.

 

Hahaha! Good one, Rev Mitchell!

 

I am not trying to argue. I believe the text is unbelievably plain. I make the same threefold distinction in the law that ALL reformed people make. The only way that you can keep one of the tithes, is to say that that particular tithe was part of the moral law, rather than the ceremonial or civil law. I am saying that is not backed up by the text. Textually speaking, it is clearly part of the ceremonial law, as it supported the ceremonial practices, and is found in the OT alongside the laws regarding temple sacrifice.

I do recall what Paul told the Colossians. He never said that Baptism was a direct replacement for Circumcision. I am a Baptist, not a Presbyterian...

But you still have numerous problems. Animal sacrifice ALSO predated the law. You say that the "tithe preceded the law", but notice that the PRIESTHOOD also preceded the law by this same logic (Melchizidek). So to keep tithing, using the same logic, you would also keep a priestly class, and animal sacrifices...

Its not enough. It is not giving according to the law. That is like saying that Nadab and Abihus fire was "enough" because it was offered to God, or Uzza's good intentions were "enough" because he honestly wanted to save the Ark.

Worship contrary to the law is not "enough." It is blasphemous, and God has a history of punishing those who do it with death.

No, the command came after Abram, and it was to give a 10th of grain to the Levites.

Its NOT irrelevant! How can you say the Word of God is irrelevant to the conversation? I notice you ignored my text....

God told the people NOT to bring money. So its not irrelevant. If it was to far to bring the grain and cattle, they were to sell it for money, and spend the tithe THEMSELVES. Tithing money was not permitted.

A New Covenant practice...completely irrelevant.

Not a chance. Abstaining from meats regarded spiritual cleanliness, for entering the tabernacle/Temple and were part of the ceremonial law. As was tithing.

My friend, your theology is all over the place. You need to pick a hermeneutic, and stick with it.

The tithe is not giving to God. It is supporting the now defunct sacrificial system, with grain and livestock.

God gets EVERYTHING. Not just ten percent.

 

You still have an admixture in different texts of moral laws and ceremonial laws.

Even if it is in the genre of ceremonial law, you may note that my argument has been from the beginning that it is not part of the ceremonial law ALONE.

Another thread...

Yea, but all this proves is that the law existed before the official giving of the law.

One would expect the ceremony that points to Christ's atonement to predate the law.

The tithe was given to God before the law, during the law (even if as part of the ceremonial law) and affirmed by Christ.

But here is the big thing (because I understand the testamental overlap that existed during the days of Christ's earthly ministry) The NT never says to STOP giving a tenth to God.

That ought to be enough.

The playing of musical instruments in worship was a ceremonial practice in the OT. The Church of Christ uses this same kind of argument from silence to say that since the NT does not SAY to play musical instruments then we should not HAVE musical instruments in church.

Our argument against that has always been- the Old Testament is still VALID. The NT does not have to TELL us to keep doing these kinds of things. Same God both testaments.

The only things you stop are those things that Christ fulfilled- those things that shadowed his work because the shadow ends at the feet of the one who casts it.

And one final thing. The NT never requires less of us than the old.

More "proselyting" (evangelizing).

More praying.

More loving your neighbor.

More acts of compassion.

etc,etc, etc...

And MORE GIVING.

So not only would the tithe not be abrogated by the NT, it would be expanded.

One ought to feel like this. "The tithe is a light expectation of my giving. If I am not even doing THAT, then I am REALLY failing in my duty to Christ and his work on earth!!!"

No, it really is not like that.

The tithe existed BEFORE the law.

A tenth to God.

God could not have been clearer that to fail to do this was to "rob God," not the Levites.

The tenth went to God.

Now you're getting ridiculous.

Saying the Word of God is irrelevant... My stars! C'mon man. Let's keep it together.

Yes, but it was still wealth. It was still giving a tenth of the wealth that God had blessed the people with. The principle is unchanged.

The monetary system in America may VERY WELL dry up in the next few decades.

We will still be expected to give. It may be chickens, eggs, vegetables or whatever- but we will still be expected to give- and in this NT era, MORE, not less than a tenth.

 

We don't tithe so it isn't an issue for us.

 

The point being, the tithe was specifically to support the sacrificial system that Christ abrogated. When Christ abrogated that system with His once for all sacrifice, He abrogated ALL of it...not just the convenient parts.

The Temple is gone, the sacrifices are done...it is exegetically inconsistent to say the tithe remains.

No, it proves you are using an inconsistent interpretation. You freely admit that priests preceded the law, in the same way the tithe did. You freely admit that sacrifices were normative before the law. Yet you SWITCH interpretive methods with the priesthood and animal sacrifices, so that these are suddenly done away with, but not with the corresponding tithe.

It is a patchwork, inconsistent theology which you are holding to.

Nor does the NT say "Stop anointing priests" or "stop animal sacrifices." Nowhere in the NT does it prohibit priests or sacrifices. We get this from

#1 The theological understanding (from places such as Hebrews) that Christ did away with these "shadows" of ceremonial law, which included the Temple, the priestly class, and the tithe that supported them

#2 The fact that there is no physical temple at which to sacrifice, nor to take take the tithe TO>...

No, your word is not enough. There is not a shred of Bible to support your position. Nowhere are we given a command that we may now tithe money, or that the tithe is now to be taken to a church, or that there is now only one tithe instead of three. Unless God specifically commands a change, God's people are not allowed to change the way they do things...

Its not an argument from silence. The NT text speaks of singing to God, and the cultural context shows these words refer to singing with accompaniment. Moreover, we CAN obey the OT on this. It is impossible to give a tithe. There is no temple, and no Levitical system.

UNLESS there is a change. There was a change. We were commanded to bring grain and livestock to the Levites. The Levites are gone. The temple is destroyed. We have no grain. Thus, we cannot give a tithe.

Further, the Ceremonial system, the ENTIRE ceremonial system, was abrogated with Christ. You don't keep bits and pieces....

We cannot just alter God's commands to suit our purposes.

Which included the entire Levitical system,...including the tithe which supported them.

And yet you are diminishing it. The Israelites were commanded to give 33 percent (Three tithes, plus a periodic tithe).

The New Testament demands ALL of our money. Everything we do, eating, drinking, entertainment, etc., is to be dedicated to Christ....not just ten percent.

No, they shouldn't. That is ridiculous. I say 50 percent. If someone doesn't give fifty percent, they are failing in their duties. ...

I can make stuff up, too. You are inventing things.

HERMENEUTIC SWITCH ALERT!!!

So did sacrifices, circumcision, and priesthood. ALL abrogated under Christ.

You are being completely inconsistent. God commanded us what to give. We should not just make stuff up. NEVER in the entire Bible is MONEY commanded to be given to God.

The tenth went to the Levites. Robbing God was disobeying His command. Had they brought money, they would have been equally disobedient.

You are completely dismissing the actual commands regarding the tithe! YOU ARE saying the Word of God is irrelevant.

You have COMPLETELY changed the principle!! The principle was "Bring your grain." If you couldn't bring your grain, you were NOT ALLOWED to bring money. You were to sell the grain, and NOT bring the tithe....

Bringing money was not allowed. You keep skimming over that. God gave specific commands. You cannot just ignore those commands, because they are inconvenient.

Tithing is not allowed to be money. We should give...but it is NOT a tithe. You cannot tithe. Its not possible. You might like to call it a tithe, but its not. A tithe was a portion of grain, specifically excluding money, brought to a Levitical class that has been disbanded, to support a sacrifical system that is no longer needed, in a temple that no longer exists....

Christians give. They do not tithe.

 

Those of you who do not tithe, help me out here.

How do you decide how much to give? I'm assuming that you give, of course.

Do you give what you think the Lord wants you to give?
Do you give proportionately to what income comes in?
Does the amount change, or does it remain constant?
Is the amount related to how much you have after paying the bills?
Do any of you give more than 10%?

I'm trying to get a feel for how one decides how much of the Lord's money he wants to give to the Lord's work.

 

The scripture says give what you want. I give according to need, and according to what I can give financially. If a need pops up, I give to it. If we need something for church, I buy it. If I cannot cover the need, I give as much as I can, and let others know about it, so they can make up the difference.


Not hard, really. I am not against people setting a percentage, if they so choose. But its not grain, its not livestock, so its not a "tithe."

 

Really??? Where exactly does it say that?