acsmith
Puritan Board Freshman
Following the scripture here...
Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum?
This thread has been "sharpening" for me!
Is The Tithe For Today?
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
Following the scripture here...
Have I been in sin, teaching babes in the Word that the 10% idea is a minimum?
This thread has been "sharpening" for me!
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
How wonderful of you to serve the Lord this way.
And how sad someone would be fundamental or moralistic, (I doubt they think legalistically, which would be that doing works will merit salvation).
But it would depend why you adopted. Did you adopt because you wanted a child or did you decide it was a way to serve the Lord?
Hey giving to your own kids is giving. As Armourbearer so often reminds us all our money is Gods. All out time, even our bodies.
So is there a difference in giving to the church, giving to a missionary, givng to an orphanage, giving to a hurt Samaritan on the road, giving to the king in obedience to him and God, etc ?
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. NKJV
Matt 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' NKJV
So whether a glass of water, or food for a child, or clothes for a poor person, or taking in a stranger in need of a home, all of these are giving.
The fact the govt allows a deduction for giving to certain organizations who have voluntarily (and in the case of churches, probably mistakenly) put themselves under the thumb of the govt, so you get a tax deduction, is irrelevant to what is giving to God.
The tithe concept has put so much confusion into the issue that I think many are like you, frustrated or guilty or ... instead of freewill offering with joy and ease.
Certainly we ought to give to support our pastor, deacons, missions and if necessary the building, etc. to make sure the needs and plans of the elders are met.
But this is not all of our giving. I think it wise we primarily give to missions through the church so that we do not give to unworthy places out of our ignorance, at least until we have much discernment between doctrinally sound ministries. We could ask the elders to consider adding a ministry to their misc. designated gifts line item. This way it comes from and edifies the church and God rather than just you. And the elders can protect you from giving to a place unworthy.
But there are times we are providentially in a position to give directly in the Lord's name to show His kindness and our trust of Him.
I think the freewill offering is more likely the example to us today of a thank offering than the tithe.
But if you were to follow OT laws why only the tithe?
Along with peace offerings there are:
Deut 12: 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. NKJV
So I say, have peace in this. Give yourself and all you have to the Lord's work as you are able. All we do is the Lord's work, kingdom work if done unto the Lord.
But be sure to remember the widows and orphans in their affliction and of course the elders who serve well.
So consider trying it out and see if you are more content and at peace in your conscience if you stop trying to keep track of all you give to be sure it is enough, as if we knew how much enough was, and just give, for the Glory of God.
Trusting that He will convict you if you are not doing enough.
If you want to keep track of money to 501c3 orgs to be a good steward of your money, fine, but for the rest, don't keep track, just obey God.
How do you do anything else in life, how much TV to watch, which shows, or no shows at all, or how much to eat, how much junk food, what kind of job to take or not, how expensive of a house to buy, whether to buy or rent, where to live, which church to go to, which bible version to read, how much makeup to wear, if your dress is modest, or hair long enough.
All of these are matters of conscience and we will never know the right or wrong or purest way to live perfectly. They are not clearly defined and commanded. So we follow the principle or seek to find the General Equity in the matter.
I encourage you to be free, but free in the Lord, with guidance from His word, and principles and examples and with counsel of exemplary brothers and sisters and in submission to your elders etc. As Paul said to those who were made to feel judged by others pushing OT rules on them:
Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, NKJV
Matt 6:3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. NKJV
Grace Alone
Puritan Board Senior
That was beautiful, Don! Thank you! I need to save that!
Part of me would love a rulebook so I could be sure I was doing everything right! And I was from a liberal church background, not a fundamental/legalistic one (and I'll seriously think more on how I may be wrongly using the term "legalistic"). You almost read my mind because I do struggle with how much is too much to spend on a new house, etc.
I hesitated to mention the adoption issue because I know we are to give in secret, but the subject of the thread caused me to mention it as one way to give that wasn't going to show up on a statement somewhere! But FYI, we did not plan on having any other children. Our kids were 10 and 13 at the time we adopted. I was drawn to the idea because before I was a real Christian, I used to say that I'd have more respect for abortion clinic protesters if they cared for orphans rather than picketing a clinic. So when I became an opponent of abortion for spiritual reasons, the Lord brought it to my mind that perhaps I shouldn't be a hypocrite, either. So, by a true leading of the Lord, my husband agreed to adopt, and we did. But even though the primary reason we adopted was not because we wanted another child, we were blessed beyond measure because we adore the child the Lord brought to us! We thought we were doing something for Him, yet in His immeasurable goodness, He gave us far more than we could have imagined! But He's like that, of course!
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Well when you find the one God wrote let me at it too. I was the same. Thought I was being spiritual by wanting to do everything the "Right" way. Just tell me a rule and I will follow it.. When I saw a movie in college on the Hasidic Jews I wanted to be one, well a little.
But God broke me of this and caused me to be humble and learn to walk by faith giving up most of my righteousness.
Praise God, the holy Spirit is still at work.
-----------------------------
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 09:07:30 EST-----
Yes Pastor Ferrell is excellent.
I don't know if this was directed to me or anyone. I think one of the pastors may answer better but I would say what is your conscience telling you?
I think it is great for you to consider this seriously. And since it is a disputed thing, you may want to change how you teach it.
Maybe say,
it is a controversial issue, here is what I have chosen to do and yet I am still open and studying, in the mean time until you come to a conviction on it, consider the examples in the OT and these NT verses on giving, and ask others what they do and give something that fits within these and continue studying and praying for God to guide you. And be open that it may not be a hard fast rule. It may vary as the church has needs. Or the members have need.
One day we may give all we have into a pool as in Acts because of similar persecution. So it can vary. But it is wise to seek to give a minimum amount consistently to the church since the church tries to plan a budget based on avg giving.
Or say, our elders teach this... as a definite rule, or as a suggested guideline or as a minimum or whatever your elders teach, if they do.
But I would not continue to tell them it absolutely should be 10%.
Great struggling with you to walk by faith, not by laws!!
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
PuritanPilgrim wrote:
Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.
I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.
I never got any answers to mine, which I have queried folks on for years. I think they're good, too
Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.
I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
PuritanPilgrim wrote:I never got any answers to mine, which I have queried folks on for years. I think they're good, too
Perhaps one explanation is the continuation of the equity or tithe principle. I have not examined it terribly closely and I'd love to do that as I explore this more.
I would love to have answers to my questions. I've never honestly had anyone answer them from Scripture.
I did not find your post in this thread, but I am surprised after all this anyone has a question
Would you re-post it here?
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Pastor,
Could you point me to where you're seeing increase in the text pertaining to the counting of livestock? I was assuming that the counting of livestock for the tithe would always include the old animals, the ones that were counted last time, along with the new animals. If it is only increase, then that changes a good bit of what I was saying.
I remember the part about the spoils of war. But in the case of Paul using this example in Hebrews 7, doesn't it seem there that he is equating the receiving and giving of tithes regardless of where it came from? Isn't he saying that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, just as the tribe of Levi receives them from the people? I realize he's not so much speaking of tithing as the main thrust of his argument, rather he's showing the greatness of Melchizedek and how Christ eclipses even him. But is he making a distinction of which tithe is which?
In Christ,
KC
Could you point me to where you're seeing increase in the text pertaining to the counting of livestock? I was assuming that the counting of livestock for the tithe would always include the old animals, the ones that were counted last time, along with the new animals. If it is only increase, then that changes a good bit of what I was saying.
I remember the part about the spoils of war. But in the case of Paul using this example in Hebrews 7, doesn't it seem there that he is equating the receiving and giving of tithes regardless of where it came from? Isn't he saying that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, just as the tribe of Levi receives them from the people? I realize he's not so much speaking of tithing as the main thrust of his argument, rather he's showing the greatness of Melchizedek and how Christ eclipses even him. But is he making a distinction of which tithe is which?
In Christ,
KC
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Aaron,
I think you can teach what the Bible says. God did and still does require a 10th, just as He did and still does require the keeping of the Sabbath. God didn't change. Now the question is, did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe just as He abrogated other ceremonial laws of the OT with his death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession? I don't believe He did either implicitly or explicitly.
But here is the rub for me, at least. I believe the tithe presupposes wealth, not income. Obviously, the modern day version of the tithing principle presupposes income. If income, then even the poorest of the poor needs to give 10% to the church. I assume this is what is meant by the equity of the tithe. Everyone gives 10%. But a person barely making it on $2 a day is not required by God to give him $.20. That just doesn't make any sense (no pun intended.) This is why Christ marveled at the widow. She didn't have to give, but gave anyway. She should have been taken care of by the church, instead, it was the other way around. She was part of the benevolence of the church (widows and orphans) and was supposed to be the object of their giving. Instead, she was doing the work others should have done.
Another reason I believe this, which I did not include in my first post, is that we don't find anywhere in the OT where God is displeased with those who have nothing, as if they should be giving Him what little they have. Those with whom God is displeased are those who do not let the land have its Sabbath because they're too busy counting their increase. They didn't trust God even in their tithe. They gave sparingly and they reaped sparingly. They became greedy and complacent. This is why Jesus tested the rich young ruler because He knew that the man could not part with his wealth, even if it was to gain heaven.
Yet another thing I didn't mention in my previous post is the fact that the people in the year of the tithe (every three years), were supposed to bring the tithe to the place of worship and eat it there before the Lord. How exactly does the modern day teaching treat this? We don't save up our money in the third year and come to church and spend the money on whatever we wish. This is all part of the tithing principle of the OT, but it doesn't see the light of day in the modern teaching.
I honestly don't know what to do with that one. I don't see how it translates to modern times. Can anyone help with this? Clearly, this is an act of worship, so it doesn't mean that we spend the money on worldly things. But how does this work into the NT church? I guess those who believe the tithe has been abrogated would say this is one of the reasons why. But I'm not so sure.
In Christ,
KC
I think you can teach what the Bible says. God did and still does require a 10th, just as He did and still does require the keeping of the Sabbath. God didn't change. Now the question is, did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe just as He abrogated other ceremonial laws of the OT with his death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession? I don't believe He did either implicitly or explicitly.
But here is the rub for me, at least. I believe the tithe presupposes wealth, not income. Obviously, the modern day version of the tithing principle presupposes income. If income, then even the poorest of the poor needs to give 10% to the church. I assume this is what is meant by the equity of the tithe. Everyone gives 10%. But a person barely making it on $2 a day is not required by God to give him $.20. That just doesn't make any sense (no pun intended.) This is why Christ marveled at the widow. She didn't have to give, but gave anyway. She should have been taken care of by the church, instead, it was the other way around. She was part of the benevolence of the church (widows and orphans) and was supposed to be the object of their giving. Instead, she was doing the work others should have done.
Another reason I believe this, which I did not include in my first post, is that we don't find anywhere in the OT where God is displeased with those who have nothing, as if they should be giving Him what little they have. Those with whom God is displeased are those who do not let the land have its Sabbath because they're too busy counting their increase. They didn't trust God even in their tithe. They gave sparingly and they reaped sparingly. They became greedy and complacent. This is why Jesus tested the rich young ruler because He knew that the man could not part with his wealth, even if it was to gain heaven.
Yet another thing I didn't mention in my previous post is the fact that the people in the year of the tithe (every three years), were supposed to bring the tithe to the place of worship and eat it there before the Lord. How exactly does the modern day teaching treat this? We don't save up our money in the third year and come to church and spend the money on whatever we wish. This is all part of the tithing principle of the OT, but it doesn't see the light of day in the modern teaching.
I honestly don't know what to do with that one. I don't see how it translates to modern times. Can anyone help with this? Clearly, this is an act of worship, so it doesn't mean that we spend the money on worldly things. But how does this work into the NT church? I guess those who believe the tithe has been abrogated would say this is one of the reasons why. But I'm not so sure.
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
So if you are not confused about what you believe I am ?
First you tell him to go ahead and teach that god says to give 10%, this is what the bible says.
Then you say you are not sure if it was abrogated along with all of the other OT laws since 10% is not part of the moral law.
And you conclude that if the OT tithing practices are not abrogated you would not even know how to apply this today?
Boy, talk about putting people in bondage and confusion.
Did you even Read Pastor Ferrell's extremely clear and accurate posts on ths subject?
I think they would help you get clarity that all of the OT laws for Israel have been abrogated.
As for what General Equity of the Confession means; that is we use the OT as examples of what things are good and make sense. What would have a sense of equity about it in dealing with others etc. to help, in areas of liberty, how we would decide whether to do it or not and what might be an equitable way to do it. But not a hard fast rule.
Can you give me on reason or scripture to show why the OT laws of all the different tithes or some of them would still be binding on us like the moral law is as a rule of life, and why it would not have been abrogated along with all the other laws?
Can you give me any other OT law you would say has been carried over and is still binding?
I think the reason the other parts of the tithe law are tossed is because they were OT laws which are abrogated.
The question is why do some hold on to one of the 10% on increase of livestock and agriculture that was paid to priests, and say we should continue to give this somewhere?
I think it is because people are not taught to seek God for guidance, to live by faith not by rules, since so many do not know how to develop a conviction on areas of liberty and we all have some Pharisaical tendencies in us, the pastors have caved in and just said its a good rule, lets tell them to tithe as a minimum, (which it wasn't a minimum), and hopefully some will know they can give more, just to simplify the matter and make sure they give some.
The Sabbath of course was moral law and not to be compared with civil and ceremonial laws. We now keep the Sabbath or we see it changed to the Lord's day so we with Calvin abrogated the Sabbath as it was a law to Israel and keep the 4th commandment as the Lord' day a day of rest from our work.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
Nowhere have I suggested one who teaches obedience to Old Testament moral law is a Pharisee. One is Pharisaical only if they teach that one earns God’s favor or salvation by their obedience. Teaching God’s standard for righteousness, which the redeemed, regenerated, justified and sanctified by grace will want to obey, though they do so imperfectly in this life, is a positive thing.
Therefore, I do not hesitate to teach and preach about the continuing obligation of the Christian to keep the Sabbath, the restraints of God’s warrant on public worship, the obligation of civil magistrates to glorify God, advance the Christian religion and enforce outward obedience to the first table of the law. Some would call me a “Pharisee” because of such teaching, though it is consistent with the Reformed confessions.
I would not hesitate to teach tithing if I found it applicable to the New Testament economy of grace. Clear rules on what to give would be helpful. I have no problem with teaching with the Larger Catechism, the duty to adequately maintain the ministry of the word (WLC 108), and see that the gospel is “propagated throughout the world,” and “the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances” (WLC 191).
Too little is taught in the church about work and wealth. If the theology of economics found in the Larger Catechism regarding the 8th Commandment was taught by the church, it could leaven the thought of our society and culture:
Q. 141. What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?
A. The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits, and suretiship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.
Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.
A. The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits, and suretiship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.
Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.
If Christians are to give sacrificially, intentionally, proportionately, and cheerfully to the maintenance of the ministry of the word and relief of the destitute, ten percent would be too little for many. Certainly teach what those principles mean. Using Old Testament examples of giving- three tithes, first fruits, first born, from booty of war, free will offerings, and sacrifices, are valuable to understanding New Testament giving.
My problem is that merely teaching a New Testament obligation to give ten percent of one’s gross or net (Which is it?) paycheck misses much that one finds in scripture, and implies that the ceremonial law continues. There is no biblical warrant to teaching the continuation of the tithe as one will find warrant for teaching the continuation of the Sabbath, God’s strict regulation of worship, or the obligation of civil magistrates to covenant with God. The distinction of the three tithes is not pointed out. That it was paid to Levites, from the increase of the soil and livestock in the tribal inheritance is not taught.
And, as the tithe was applicable to increase, not income, how would one apply that to wages, assuming it was directly applicable. Some of the produce of the land was consumed to maintain ones household during the year, or as a cost of production. Thus, at the end of the year, or at harvest, this was not counted in the increase.
Thus, the part of one’s income used to provide transportation to a job, is that increase? It is a cost of production? Health insurance for one’s family, whether provided as a benefit by an employer or paid from one’s wages, is it income on which one should tithe? Is it an increase or is it a cost of maintaining one’s household? A single person or a childless couple has less cost in maintaining their family than another family with ten children, perhaps with several adopted orphans as noted in a prior post. Is the increase of wealth the same for both families? Does the same ten percent on wages apply to both? And is tithing limited to one’s paycheck? Should not one calculate their dividends, interest, increase in equity from the sell of property? What about inheritance?
Such matters are far more complicated than merely telling people to give ten percent of their gross or net (whichever) pay check. And, for a minister to preach such a requirement, not in the pharisaical sense, but without a proper understanding of what scripture requires on the subject, is to go beyond the word of God and to place a burden on believers over and beyond what God’s word says. Thus, my objection.
What we should be teaching about work, wealth and stewardship is far more radical than merely suggesting believes give ten percent. All belongs to God; the support of the ministry and relief of the destitute is an essential obligation; we must take care to increase, preserve and make holy use of all God has give us, help others do the same, be content with God’s provision and not covet what he has given another.
I’ll gladly be corrected on this. However, as I’ve pointed out what scripture says on this, the obligation is now for others to show where scripture applies the tithe to something other than the agricultural produce of the promised land or the plunder of war. The most we can find there is principles which help flesh out the New Testament obligation for believers to give sacrificially, intentionally, proportionately, and cheerfully for the gospel and deaconal ministries of the church, and to be good stewards of all the rest as belonging to God.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
Tom, I did answer you from scripture. My point is these don't transfer into today’s world or economy. And neither do they look anything like putting 10% in a plate. If we say the tithe transfers over, how would someone eat their tithe before the Lord with their family? How would they buy whatever their heart desires with their tithe. It's almost like there is a duel hermeneutic here. Simultaneously interpreting passages as liberals and conservatives. At one point being very dogmatic and asserting 10%, and then backing off a bit because it doesn't all fit into our economy, or even look like what we do today. Seriously, eating our tithe. This does not transfer. This is what Baptist normally do with elders and deacons. Claims at one point we must be strict and super conservative with the text and now anyone who has been divorced can't be a deacon, but they become very liberal with the same text and allow deacons be basically be elders. You can have. It must be consistent.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
You are correct to point out the commandment concerning a tithe of livestock in Lev. 27:30-33 does not specify “on the increase.” However, I believe it can be deduced from:
1) The increase of the seed and fruit is not specified here either, but is made clear later in Deut. 14. If it was the increase on the seed and fruit which was to be tithed, so also may be the case with the livestock.
2) If the tithe is not on the increase, it would be onerous for those with less productive herds. If one’s livestock reproduced a hundred fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 200 at the end of the year), and another’s reproduced only fifty fold (e.g. 100 sheep at the beginning of the year, 150 at the end of the year), the one with the greater increase would give 20 sheep, where the less productive one would give 15. The productive one ends up with 180 sheep, the less productive one ends up with 135. The poorer shepherd is giving more of his increase, 30%, while the richer one is giving less, 20%. This is contrary to the principle of giving proportionately as God has blessed (Deut. 15:14; 1 Cor. 16:2).
3) Though we should read with caution rabbinic material, as certainly not having any authority as God’s word, it may be historically informative to read the traditional Jewish understanding of this passage. The Leviticus 27 practice of counting with the rod to determine the tithe is described by the rabbi Maimonides:
"He (the owner) gathers all the lambs and all the calves into a field, and makes a little door to it, so that two cannot go at once; and he places their dams without, and they bleat, so that the lambs hear their voice, and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said, whatsoever passeth under the rod: for it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand; and when they go out of the fold, one after another, he begins and counts them with the rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that goes out, whether male or female, whether perfect or blemished, he marks it with a red mark, and says, 'This is the tithe" (Hilchet Becorot, c. 6, sect 1; from Gills Exposition, on Leviticus 27:32)]
Thus, it is the newborn calves, kids and lambs thus marked as belonging to the Levites, not the older ones which were tithed in previous years.
-----Added 4/3/2009 at 01:23:19 EST-----
As already pointed out, Abraham’s tithe was not of the same sort. It was on the plunder of war, not on agricultural produce.
Paul’s point was that in his federal head, Abraham, Levi gave tithes to a priest, Melchizedek, and received his priestly blessing, indicating his submission to a greater priesthood than the Aaronic priesthood of the ceremonial law of Moses. Thus, the Aaronic priesthood was inferior to that of Melchizedek and Christ. The Aaronic priesthood only pointed to Christ, and is now done away with. The Levitical tithe is not applicable to those falling under Christ’s priestly redemption.
Your desire to faithfully teach all God’s word commands is commendable. However, your application of the Levitical tithe to the post resurrection redeemed in Christ is faulty, and goes beyond God’s command. Much modern teaching on the tithe is man’s tradition.
BTW, the tithe in the centuries before the Reformation was an onerous and oppressive system of church taxation keeping the masses poor and under the tyranny of the papal whore. Find a Reformer, Puritan or Westminster divine who taught the continuation of the Levitical tithe, or some form of ten percent giving obligation.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
The Bible does teach it. And I don't know how to skirt this issue. God has His reasons and I'm just trying to find out HOW it should be applied, not WHETHER it should be applied.
Reading it again, I can see why it is confusing. What I should have said was, "...did Christ in some way abrogate the tithe, which is not merely ceremonial, along with other laws which were ceremonial." That probably doesn't help you because you believe the tithe is ceremonial. But I would still suggest you look to Abraham and Jacob. They weren't under any compulsion regarding the law, but they did set a precedent in their actions. They gave a tithe before one was required. Why? Some arbitrary number? I really believe it has to be the Holy Spirit working in them, just as He does with us. And can the Holy Spirit not work in percentages?
I know you wrote earlier that you didn't read my entire first post. I would encourage you to do that if you want to interact with me. You, of course, don't have to if you don't want to.
What I am saying is that the tithe applies to us in some way. But, I'm also saying that the modern day teaching is flawed because it applies the principles of the tithe incorrectly. The tithe of today is 10% of gross income, given on a regular basis (so as not to fall behind in the payments to God). That is flawed from what we can see in the OT. It applies part of a principle, but the agrarian aspect of the tithe does not translate exactly into the dollars and cents of today.
I am not mandating anything, except that we try to figure out what God requires of our stewardship. There is much confusion, and I'm sorry if I am causing even more. I just want to tell others how I understand it so that we can help each other.
I agree with him on many points and I think we are all in agreement that today's teaching on this subject is flawed. The only place I disagree is that the law is abrogated. I find nothing to suggest that the tithe was merely national or theocratic in the OT, nor can I find anything in the NT saying that it is no longer required. Remember that the tithe had mainly to do with worship. Sure, the Jews turned it into all sorts of bonderous things, much like it is today. But when I read that the children were to save up for the third year so that they could go feast before the Lord, that is glorious, not bonderous. When I read that the gifts were brought so that the widow and the orphan could be taken care of, why does that translate to something beggarly? If we give a cup of cold water, we do it as unto Christ! That should make us more generous than less.
I agree with you, we need to stop the legalistic way we apply the tithe, but that isn't the tithe's fault. It is our heart that needs to change and understand the meaning of it all.
I was misapplying that. When I talk about the general equity of the tithe (modern day), I am talking about the sentiment that everyone should give 10% of their income regularly, even if they have nothing but a wage to speak of. I think that is wrong. I believe the tithe presupposed possessions and wealth, not merely wages.
I'll answer the second question first. Not to be crass, but there were laws governing proper modesty among family that are not explicitly mentioned in the NT that certainly do apply today. We are not to uncover the nakedness of any person close to us. While we may consider that to be a no brainer, I think that is more cultural for us to be more modest than other people on the earth. But it is still prohibited and ought to be taught among all peoples.
As for the first question, Jesus specifically states towards the Pharisees that they should show mercy as well as continue to give their tithes to the Lord. I really don't see why Jesus would have said that if the tithe were not to continue. Obviously, too, there was great diaconal work going on in the early church that would obviously need to be provided for. There was a great amount of generosity going on. Generocity and benevolence is greatly needed in our day because we don't even come close to the type of giving in the early church. Paul also sets a precedent that teaching elders are worthy of double honor and that they should be taken care of. All of these are reasons why the tithe should continue.
Now if you want to substitute giving for tithing, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But we should realize that to whom much is given, much is required and I think the tithe set a precedent for that.
I would also add that we each come with baggage to this subject. Because of this, we ought always to remember that a 10% requirement in whatever shape or form is never to be approached in a legalistic manner. There are some in the church who believe they will get physically ill if they don't count out their tithe to the penny and give it every time they are supposed to. That's just nuts. I categorize tithing somewhat like our relationship to the civil magistrate. Let me explain.
We are to obey the powers over us. But if those powers are going to charge us to disobey God with a law they pass, we have every right to civil disobedience. In this way, one law or rule of God cannot make another law impossible to obey. With our stewardship, God is not requiring 10% of our income so that we cannot pay others to whom we owe money. Or, He cannot require the only thing we have to feed our family, so that they go hungry, because we are to take care of our families. Some in our day would say that you tithe no matter what, that God will make up the rest, "somehow," that we are to test God in this, like it says in Malachi. I really believe that is a misapplication of Scripture. The other thing is "sacrificial giving." That is not commanded by the OT tithe, either.
Again, I think you're applying all the ways the tithe may be abused and placing that fault on the tithe. People abuse the laws of God and twist them every which way. That isn't the law's fault. Our relationship to the law will always create tendencies of legalism or anti-nomianism, but that is our fault. We need to learn how to obey God without legalism. If we don't teach the tithe as a principle that is still a general rule for the believer, then, In my humble opinion, we aren't teaching the full counsel of God.
Okay, I agree with that. And I would add the following:
I assume you believe that the Sabbath was made for man. That is, after all, the teaching of Christ. What if the tithe was made for man. Look at how they were to celebrate because of it. It wasn't designed to be a burden. It was designed so that worship could be glorious. I don't see the harm in that. And I think we should investigate how we are to properly apply it.
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
I hope you can go back and read your posts and see that your thinking is not clear or consistent. Therefore I suggest you keep studying the issue and praying. Study hermeneutics so you do not violate proper interpretive principles. We can't just pick and choose verses out of context and apply them to what we think.
Pastor Ferrell made this abundantly clear that we cannot tithe. The tithes were many not one. Why pick one of them to say we should follow more than another.
And he explained Abraham and Melchizedek as not on income. It was a special symbolic offering. And
ALL laws for Israel were abolished for the new covenant. The word would have to tell us to keep one if it wasn't.
Why would we keep the tithe if all others were abolished. And only one of the tithes?
Do as you wish, but I encourage you not to teach people they should tithe. They should obey the clear teaching of the NT, give as God prospers you.
Give as you see needs providentially put before you, to the household of faith first, then to the heathen. Seek the Holy Spirit to guide you in giving.
Have you read all of the Westminster Larger Catechism? I would encourage you to read this as a well accepted accurate explanation of God's word. Its free here or on Monergism.com
http://www.opc.org/lc.html
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Pastor,
I see why you would deduce that. But as I pointed out in my first post, it almost seems like a different accounting based on the difference in commodity. Perhaps you're right. I know the modern day version always talks about increase so that whatever income you've tithed on before is not counted in what you tithe now. It's funny that when we become accountants over our own possessions we always pay more attention to the details. We wouldn't want to give too much, as Maimonides points out below by not "pushing" a sheep under the staff. That's pretty funny when you think about it. "Hey all your sheep are running away from the staff! Oh, well, I guess they don't count."
That was my point from my first post. If you actually consider your wealth and not your income, your percentage will be higher than 10%, because you will have counted your possessions more than once. From the rabbinical words below, it certainly looks as if they were not counting all their livestock, but only those who had not been counted before. That changes part of what I wrote, because it would seem that if only the new animals were counted since the last counting, then only your increase of wealth is required. This still shows a presuppostion of wealth, and not income, because you can't count sheep you don't have. That throws the idea of gross income out of the equation.
They must be applying the increase principle here. They certainly weren't counting all their flocks or herds, but only the new animals since the last counting.
I can see this. I'm still not sure that I see abrogation, though.
I agree with your last sentence. That is what I have been saying if it was unclear. However, how do we teach people to give generously? What are the principles we may glean from so few passages in the NT that apply? The early church didn't have the benefit of the abrogation language you speak of. How would they have approached this?
If there is abrogation, what does that do to worship? Do you think the tithe was an element or a circumstance of worship?
I realize that. We certainly are due for an overhaul. How do we reform our giving? How do we cast off a teaching so prevelant?
In Christ,
KC
I see why you would deduce that. But as I pointed out in my first post, it almost seems like a different accounting based on the difference in commodity. Perhaps you're right. I know the modern day version always talks about increase so that whatever income you've tithed on before is not counted in what you tithe now. It's funny that when we become accountants over our own possessions we always pay more attention to the details. We wouldn't want to give too much, as Maimonides points out below by not "pushing" a sheep under the staff. That's pretty funny when you think about it. "Hey all your sheep are running away from the staff! Oh, well, I guess they don't count."
That was my point from my first post. If you actually consider your wealth and not your income, your percentage will be higher than 10%, because you will have counted your possessions more than once. From the rabbinical words below, it certainly looks as if they were not counting all their livestock, but only those who had not been counted before. That changes part of what I wrote, because it would seem that if only the new animals were counted since the last counting, then only your increase of wealth is required. This still shows a presuppostion of wealth, and not income, because you can't count sheep you don't have. That throws the idea of gross income out of the equation.
They must be applying the increase principle here. They certainly weren't counting all their flocks or herds, but only the new animals since the last counting.
I can see this. I'm still not sure that I see abrogation, though.
I agree with your last sentence. That is what I have been saying if it was unclear. However, how do we teach people to give generously? What are the principles we may glean from so few passages in the NT that apply? The early church didn't have the benefit of the abrogation language you speak of. How would they have approached this?
If there is abrogation, what does that do to worship? Do you think the tithe was an element or a circumstance of worship?
I realize that. We certainly are due for an overhaul. How do we reform our giving? How do we cast off a teaching so prevelant?
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
By doing it by faith not by the letter.
good for you for studying the previous posts!
I also recommend the book, The Life of God in the Soul of Man.
Very Short, easy to read, and profound.
Whitfield who was raised with rules said that he didn't know what true religion was until he read this book.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
Consider the context. Jesus was speaking to Jews, growing a spice garden in the promised land, who owed a tithe to the Levites. Thus, the ceremonial law was in effect until the resurrection.
In the same way, Christ commanded the healed lepers to go show themselves to the priests and offer the prescribed sacrifice. This was in the context of Old Testament ceremonial law also.
Jesus’ command in neither of these circumstances warrants the continuation of an obligation to follow the ceremonial law in these matters.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I can't very well find you a ceremonial law that was not abrogated, can I? You asked me to find you another OT law that has been carried over and is still binding. This is an example. And it is not adultery per se, although if you look at one of your family members in lust, then, as Jesus tells us, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
I'll conceed that point.
Yet there should be a principle of giving, right? What should that be? I would be perfectly happy with give as the Lord has given you, but some people do not give at all. How should we address that?
To be fair, I don't know how you can suggest this if you haven't read them all. If you have, I beg your forgiveness. I really think you believe that I am saying that the modern day teaching of the tithe is what we should be putting forward. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we need to reexamine it and teach what the Bible says.
All I'm saying is that we must be able to find principles in the OT that will guide us in this. The theology of the NT is based upon it, so we cannot simply dismiss this or that because of how it has been abused before. We have to come to an understanding of what the tithe was for and what it pointed to. I can't buy that it was simply theocratic or nationalistic. It was a part of worship, so it is important to understand why it was given and what happened to it at the cross.
Thanks for the encouragement to read the LC.
In Christ,
KC
-----Added 4/3/2009 at 03:12:06 EST-----
I thought of that as I was replying to Don. I can see that He may have been telling them to obey the law of Moses concerning the tithe. That's a good point.
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
We who? I have been. I think many need to examine their belief and see if scripture support a tithe. And I am always open to be corrected from scripture. I have changed my opinions more than once.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
The reason I think we must be careful with the tithe is because of what it meant to the worship of God. That is where principle comes in. We want people to grow; to worship God; to edify one another. We don't encourage that by saying, "Aww, it don't matter what you give, just as long as you give something." That doesn't encourage the man of God to excel in godliness. Every command of God needs to be taken seriously. Granted, some of these have been abrogated. But that should not make us say, "Whew! At least we don't have to obey that one anymore." This is God we're talking about it. He is the creator and we are the creature. We should always hold His commands in fear of Him who made them. They weren't arbitrary. And we need to remember that our Savior, who gave His precious life for us, obeyed every law perfectly on our behalf. We should never take that lightly.
I'm not saying you're doing this. All I am saying is that we need to be careful.
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Right we obey these clear statements of NT giving.
2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
"He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood." NKJV
1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
NKJV
But not the tithe
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
2 Cor 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
"He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. NKJV
Mark 12:42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood." NKJV
1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
NKJV
But not the tithe
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? NKJV
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
We certainly should not discourage anyone from seeking godliness. Telling them to give intentionally, proportionately as God has blessed, sacrificially, cheerfully as God commands should be sufficient.
We learn principles from Old Testament ceremonial laws regarding giving and sacrifice. For example laws requiring giving of the firstborn, the first fruits, and sacrifices without blemish teach us our giving to God must be of our first, not our left overs, and our best, not what we don’t want ourselves. But, it would be a distortion of the gospel to teach any of these ceremonial laws continue.
We cannot preach and teach what scripture does not command, simply because we think it indicates a higher standard. We can’t require what God does not. To do so would distort the gospel, make void God's word, and lay on men burdens God does not. Such is not the way to godliness.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
See, I like this. I think this is helpful. One question from above: What do you mean by sacrificially and what Scripture were you thinking about?
In Christ,
KC
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
A verse pointing to giving sacrificially would be the widows 2 mites,
Phil 4:18 I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. NKJV
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service NKJV
Acts 4:34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. NKJV
Gal 4:15 For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. NKJV
Last edited:
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
See post 46. I'm asking questions of statments made that are typical against the tithe practice. It might be space intensive to repost here. I'd love to hear a reaction to/response to them. Thanks!
-----Added 4/5/2009 at 08:25:14 EST-----
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
Sacrifice: the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
Giving something you'd like to keep for yourself; but giving anyway because of love.
Example: The widow who gave her two mites, "all that she had, even all her living."
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Matt 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old,'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
NKJV
Matt 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. NKJV
Matt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; KJV
Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV
God does nto want us just to follow rules, he wants our heart changed, a new creature. New desires. Not just obedience but from a heart desire.
Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. NKJV
Galatians not only tells us we are not saved by keeping the law but that the laws were just a tutor to bring us to Christ, shadows until Christ, so we drop them now and walk by the Spirit not the outward letter of the laws. It should be written on our hearts what to do. This can't mean the moral law because we are still to obey it as a rule of life but not any of the rest.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. NKJV
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
Gal 4:24 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar —
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. NKJV
The bondage is the OT laws. They with Israel the nation are gone forever!
Hope I did this properly for you.
Last edited:
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
I appreciate your response. While my purpose was not to advocate one side or another, I think the argument that the tithe is a moral/ceremonial law....these have been abrogated in total, thus the tithe is not for today - is compelling. I am not entirely convinced of its veracity, but I appreciate from whence it comes. I think this is a far better way to argue the anti-tithing case than to make a sweeping statement. Interestingly enough, the covenantal abrogation adherants tend to be dispensational in my experience.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Those I know who hold the pro-tithe view argue that only one tithe was consistent throughout the OT. I would still maintain that saying "The OT were agricultural people, so we must dismiss a practice as culturally irrelevant" is a troublesome plank, no doubt aided in its trouble by cutlural relevance throngs who seek to dismess sexual mores, etc.
Anyone who seeks tithing as a means of salvation is an idiot. I've never met anyone like that. There are two erroneous caricatures: one that portrays a tither as checking off a list's item that sanctifies him, and the anti-tither who gives a little and cries "grace" to justify it. Both are just that: caricatures.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
My argument is not that the tithe is not relevant due to our not being agricultural people. Most people lived in agricultural economies until a hundred years or so ago.
My argument is the God prescribed terms of the tithe can not be applied today.
1) We do not live in the promised land.
2) We do not have a continuing Levitical tribe.
3) Most of us do not have agricultural increase from the promised land in Palestine.
4) Few who argue for the continuation of the tithe make anything of the second and third tithe.
This does not mean we can’t learn principles from Old Testament tithing. Give of your increase, proportionally, without delay, supporting the moral equivalent of the Levites, those preaching and teaching the word. We can call the obligation of Christians to adequately and generously support the ministry a moral principle. We can not call the tithe a moral law.
- Status
