- Jan 26, 2007
- 14,535
- 1,054
- 51
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Lis, did you read my entire post, or only take only that one part? There was no twisting of Scripture.
Upvote
0
Let us look at things from a different perspective. What is the purpose of the tithe?
Churches need money to operate. Rent, heating, electricity, etc. In some cases, there are paid staff at churches. Can the Lord provide these things? Yes, and He does through the tithes of the congregation.
In the Old Testament, the tithes consisted of food, because that was used to feed the priests, and for the sacrifices. Money wasn't as much of a necessity for the temple as it is today for the church. Using the argument of food doesn't apply due to differences in culture.
The word "tithe" literally means "10%." It occurs several times in the Old Testament. God commanded a tenth of what He had given to his people (grain, produce, etc.).
He even went as far as to accuse his people of stealing when they didn't tithe properly. (Malachi 3:10)
Does tithing appear in the New Testament? Paul speaks of taking up a collection for the saints in I Corinthians 16:1-4 that seems pretty clear as to the intent. There are mentions of gifts as well, which are different than tithes.
So, what is right? I think 10% (tithe) is a great guideline, as it was what God established from the beginning. Is it wrong to do less or more? Only a legalist might argue that. We give our tithes not out of any "legal" obligation, but out of our own love for God and walk with Him.
Also keep this in mind. Nothing you have really belongs to you. God gave you the skills and abilities to earn money. He had provided for the job that pays you. It is great hubris for us to think that anything we have done has all been on our own. If we realize that everything we have, and everything we are, is a gift from God, then giving our tithe, whatever the amount, will never be a chore, but a way of thanking God for His provision in our lives.
Just remember, others might say the same about what you write. Do we have all the answers? Are some things going to be wrong? Of course. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't have all the denominations, and all the disagreements. To say something is "improper" may not always be correct.Ok, let's look, shall we, as it seems many have it all confused in a mish-mash of improper exegesis and hermeneutics.
I agree, which is what I had written in my post as well. That is why I said the comparison that was being made would not work. Pastors can do other jobs, yes, and many do. Does that mean it is wrong for a pastor to be one full-time?The purpose of the tithe was to provide the upkeep of the tabernacle (later the temple), including the Levites - the priests. Worthy to acknowledge, unlike modern day pastors or ministries, the Levites were not allowed to own any property (as none was set aside by God), nor were they allowed to do other work to generate income, such as writing books, being on TV, and other endorsements. Pastors today can actually own their own home and do other work to generate income.
Semantics won't really get you very far. Yes, the church is you and I, but the church is also the building we meet in. When speaking of the church, it is clear I'm referring to the building. The logic doesn't equate to the tithe coming to you or I, although indirectly it would, as it pays for the building, the utilities, etc.What is the church? It's you and me. The building that we assemble in, or the ministry that we may be a part of, is not the church. The building that we regularly meet in, houses the church - but that is not the church. So if you are going to use the logic of the tithes going to the church, then the tithes should go to you and me!
Again, it proves my earlier point of why you can't use a comparison.Pastors today can own land, hold title to property, and generate other income. The Levites could not.
As I have also stated. But But giving doesn't negate tithing, unless you consider tithing an "obligation" which isn't what I'm referring to.So how do we support the church/ministry today - for heat, lights, mortgage payments, staff, pastors salary, Sunday School programmes, church bus, church camps, etc etc et al? Through our giving. Giving and tithing are different things.
I agree.I encourage giving, and giving generously. So while I don't tithe, I do give. In fact, giving a tenth is a good place to start, and even more, if we're able and happy about it.
Comparing baptism and tithing is like comparing apples to oranges. The comparison doesn't work.Most of us as charismatics will vehemently fight to the death that the proper way (and proper meaning) to baptize is by full immersion. Sprinkling doesn't cut it, even though it may have been more convenient when Constantine demanded his soldiers to convert to Christianity but there was little water as some garrisons were in the desert. We say, no, it must be full immersion because that's what "baptizo" means.
So why don't we do the same with the Biblical tithe? It was never currency, even though currency was available. I agree it's far more practical today to use currency, but the Biblical tithe was never currency. So we can't conveniently have it both ways, as otherwise, if there's no water around, we have to accept baptism by sprinkling as being more "practical".
I agree with you about the Biblical tithe never being money. I have never once stated differently. The fact is, many of the rules relating to the tithe were for the Hebrew people at that time, in the culture that they lived in. It is impossible for us to follow those rules today, as culture and times have changed.The word "tithe" can cause confusion, since it has a double meaning. While "tithe" simply means a tenth (ergo, when someone says, "We tithe 10% of our income" - that's redundant), the Biblical tithe was never a tenth of your money, ie. it was never currency, even though currency was around. IOW, very, very few of us today Biblically tithe, even though many of us give a tenth of our income). The only Scripture that the tithe was converted to currency is Deut 14-22-26, but was converted back to livestock or produce, and that tithe was for the people to consume (ie. not give to the church).
To add to add, if we counted up all the tithes that were required of the Israelites, to actual amount of the Biblical tithe was actually around 23%. In fact, Deut 14 sets the rules about the tithe that is a very important point which many churches and many believers conveniently or ignorantly forget today.
I never said it was binding on Christians. I used it as an OT reference point for the tithe, to add to other references being given. The point still remains the same.No one can categorically state that Malachi's reference to tithing is relevant for Christians, when the same book speaks, in the same terms, about the proper way to sacrifice an animal upon the altar. One cannot have it both ways. Unless one actually believes that Christians should offer animals as sacrifices, one must accept the burden of proof for claiming that tithing Malachi 3 are binding on Christians. Since pastors often quote Malachi 3 to support their beliefs on tithing, it bears mentioning that that passage is not directed at the farmers who give the tithe, but at the crooked priests, who were collecting the tithe from the farmers but taking a cut off the top before depositing it in the storehouse.
Nor was I insinuating there was any set amount. I simply mentioned the collection of the saints that said that money was being collected, to show that there was a practice of giving in the New Testament.You're right, tithing is different from giving. Paul's remarks about giving have nothing to do with tithing. When he told believers to put something aside at the beginning of the week, he was talking about a discretionary amount for a one-time relief offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem. There is no allusion anywhere in his writings to the giving of a set amount, nor is there any allusion to any sort of regular giving to the local congregation. In late antiquity, synagogues and churches were built by well-to-do benefactors, who donated different parts of the building in their entirety and were usually credited for it in an inscription.
That is legalism you are referring to, and I even said as much in my own post. This isn't about legalism, but about a guideline in which has Biblical support.Now, for New Testament believers, the question of what the Gentile assemblies had to do was answered in Acts 15. This would have been the perfect opportunity to bind the Gentile assemblies to the tithe and in fact, clear up the whole tithing issue.
Acts 15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (IOW, including the law of Tithing.)
The leaders in Jerusalem wrote them a letter.
Acts 15
23They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
24Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" - to whom we gave no such commandment - 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[2] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. [emphasis mine]
Now who I ask, added "and pay your tithes" to this letter? I certainly ain't gonna do it.
I agree with you. My post was never about binding believers to anything. My post was simply refuting the fact that you could compare the tithing of OT times (which was food) to what we consider a tithe today. My post was about guidelines for giving, where the 10% comes from, not legalistic views of giving. Whether you call it a gift, an offering or a tithe, the fact is, you are giving to God. If you have in your mind that it is an obligation, then you have the wrong motivation. If you are giving whatever amount out of obedience and your love for God, then that is the right motivation.I too think that 10% is a good guideline. It makes for a great starting point. But we cannot bind believers to it because there is nothing to bind! We need to emphasize giving, in fact, if we're able, to give beyond 10% as God desires for us to be generous givers. As everything does belong to God, our mindset should not be, "Well, I've paid my tithe so the rest is mine to do as I please." But rather, "God, where and how much do you want me to give." - even if that means well beyond our 10%.
So I teach people to give, as the Lord leads. And if we're truly obedient to the Lord's leading, the giving is always generous, and in my experience, very often well beyond 10%.
Lis, did you read my entire post, or only take only that one part? There was no twisting of Scripture.
Semantics won't really get you very far. Yes, the church is you and I, but the church is also the building we meet in. When speaking of the church, it is clear I'm referring to the building. The logic doesn't equate to the tithe coming to you or I, although indirectly it would, as it pays for the building, the utilities, etc.
I agree with you. My post was never about binding believers to anything. My post was simply refuting the fact that you could compare the tithing of OT times (which was food) to what we consider a tithe today.
My post was about guidelines for giving, where the 10% comes from, not legalistic views of giving.
Whether you call it a gift, an offering or a tithe, the fact is, you are giving to God. If you have in your mind that it is an obligation, then you have the wrong motivation. If you are giving whatever amount out of obedience and your love for God, then that is the right motivation.
You're always welcome to "butt in" Tamara.I'm sure Andry will answer you, and sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to respond to a couple things here...
Not true. I don't assume that they are indespensible. I am simply speaking of the collective church as opposed to the individual. There is a difference, and there isn't another way to describe it.This is only semantics if you assume that the Church needs buildings and/or that the buildings are an indespensable part of Church.
Some congregations meet in homes, others meet in buildings. Our church has over 2,000+ active members. How is it bad stewardship to have a building for the congregation to meet in? If the church was smaller, I could see the argument you are making, but most have too many members to meet in a home.IMO, buildings are by and large bad stewardship on the part of the Church. Yes, I realize we need places to meet. But the NT Church met in each other's homes. And it wasn't for lack of funds. True religion is taking care of widows and orphans. Do we really need multi-million dollar buildings to be the Church? Or is that a distraction and a burden that we should really eschew?
IMO, it's the latter.
I agree, it is very important to know the distinctions between the Church and the church. I agree we need to realize what the Church is, but that doesn't change the fact that we aren't talking about the Church, but about the church building, the church congregation, the church outreaches, etc.So, for some people it is much much much more than semantics. It is, imo, vital that the Church realize what the Church really is.
You're a lawyer, you know the value of semantics.Now who's playing semantics? Just kidding.
Which is what I explained in both my posts so far. Yes, there is a comparison, between OT and modern tithing, but that comparison between food/money is what is flawed, IMO. The fundamental reason for the tithe, hasn't changed. In the OT it was to support the levites and for use in sacrifices. We don't have a temple, we don't have priests, we don't have sacrifices. Most people aren't farmers or herdsmen. We do have a church to support, though, and thus the concept of the tithe.The thing about this is that there is no NT "tithing"...but many Christians preach that we should tithe. So, if they are going to preach that, the only Scriptural source for tithing is OT. So, the comparison has to be made.
Tithe literally means 10%. Mentions of the tithes referred to 10%. As Andry pointed out, often times it was higher, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word.But 10% = tithe. So, the "guideline" isn't found in Scripture. So, why have the guideline in the first place?
It isn't giving to God? I find that an interesting view, considering the purpose of the upkeep, salaries, etc, is to help the body. It helps reach out to the lost. It helps build up the Church through the teaching of the Word. It helps to reach out to the widows and the orphans.Except... some (like myself) would argue that giving to a church to help upkeep and salaries, etc, isn't really giving to God. JMHO.
But if the church is out there, actively seeking and serving God's Will, and building up the Church to do God's Will, then the money would absolutely be going to God.
Often times the reason things get so off-balance is because not enough people in the church are giving. .
IMO, buildings are by and large bad stewardship on the part of the Church. Yes, I realize we need places to meet. But the NT Church met in each other's homes. And it wasn't for lack of funds.
Hi There
I agree with Tamarra, see below.
A lot of people dont give because the money is not used for necessity and often not even used where it was collected to go. Bad stewardship.
Buildings are not 'necessary', the church could meet in homes. Buildings are often vanity and expensive vanity!
And I dont think we should invent doctrines just to support someone's vanity!
From the widow's mite onwards, how many poor people have been ground into the ground to keep these horrible edifices going? My grandmother sent herself to an early grave fulfilling all these tithes and taxes in the catholic church, to keep their flamboyant wealth and pompous buildings going. The money should go direct to the needy, not get taken from them........
Not that all buildings are bad but the building is not the church. The church is the people, the living stones. If the building is a burden to the people, to the real church then it should be discarded. It can become an idol.
It does not matter if you meet in a field, a house, a building or a boat. The church is the people and they should come before the building! But, in many institutions this is not the case!
The point is, in some churches you are correct, unfortunately. There are many churches out there that are doing it correctly, just as there are many that are doing it incorrectly.If the church isn't doing these things, then yes, I would agree with you. But if the church is out there, actively seeking and serving God's Will, and building up the Church to do God's Will, then the money would absolutely be going to God.
This is only semantics if you assume that the Church needs buildings and/or that the buildings are an indespensable part of Church.
IMO, buildings are by and large bad stewardship on the part of the Church. Yes, I realize we need places to meet. But the NT Church met in each other's homes. And it wasn't for lack of funds. True religion is taking care of widows and orphans. Do we really need multi-million dollar buildings to be the Church? Or is that a distraction and a burden that we should really eschew?
IMO, it's the latter.
So, for some people it is much much much more than semantics. It is, imo, vital that the Church realize what the Church really is.
Except... some (like myself) would argue that giving to a church to help upkeep and salaries, etc, isn't really giving to God. JMHO.
Those who advocate literal tithing usually point out that the practice began back in Genesis, with Abraham and Melchizedek. That means it predated the Mosaic Sinatic Torah.
THE THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF TITHING.
1. Tithing was a pre- Mosaic Law because Abraham tithed.
2. Jesus told the Pharisees to continue to tithe their spices.
3. Jesus came to fulfill the law not change it.