Question About Tithing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
I have for years maintained that tithing was part of the ceremonial law but have as late begun to rethink my postion.
Would the following passage seem to indicate that there was a systematic method of giving before the law?:

Gen 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
Gen 28:21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set [for] a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

Also bearing in mind that Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. Where did Abraham and Jacob come up with this number if there was no tithe in place befor the law??

BTW, Pink has got me thinkin' again.
Tithing
 
BTW, Pink has got me thinkin' again.
Tithing

Before I even got to the bottom of your post I was wondering if you were reading Pink again because the questions you were asking. I like Pink's POV although some might question his use of some rather obscure passages.

I agree with Pink that tithing predates the ceremonial law as does the Sabbath. I have no answer to the question, "Where did Abraham come up with the idea of a 10th?" except that God told him a 10th.

I highly recommend Pastor Weaver's series entitled "Biblical Wealth": http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&keyword=John%5EWeaver&keyworddesc=John+Weaver&currsection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=wealth&x=0&y=0
 
I have for years maintained that tithing was part of the ceremonial law but have as late begun to rethink my postion.
Would the following passage seem to indicate that there was a systematic method of giving before the law?:

I’m not sure I would go so far as to call it a systematic method. What Abraham and Jacob did were voluntary acts (that is the nature of a vow).

It is true that there are no commands to tithe outside the Mosaic code. What are we to make of this under the terms of the new covenant?
 
I have for years maintained that tithing was part of the ceremonial law but have as late begun to rethink my postion.
Would the following passage seem to indicate that there was a systematic method of giving before the law?:

I’m not sure I would go so far as to call it a systematic method. What Abraham and Jacob did were voluntary acts (that is the nature of a vow).

It is true that there are no commands to tithe outside the Mosaic code. What are we to make of this under the terms of the new covenant?

I'm not exactly sure. Paul did tell us to lay aside in store as God has prospered us on the first day of the week. Could the early christians have used the example of Jacob? All giving must be out of love and thankfulness for sure.
 
This statement from the second part of his work is thought provoking:

Tithing the Solution of Every Financial Problem

Again. I believe that God has appointed tithing as the solution of every financial problem that can arise in connection with His work. While the children of Israel practiced tithing there was no difficulty in maintaining the system of worship that God had appointed. And if God’s people today practiced tithing, there would be an end of all financial straits that are crippling so many Christian enterprises. No church could possibly be embarrassed financially where its members tithed. And I believe that that is the solution of rural church work in thinly populated districts. Wherever you have ten male Christians you have sufficient to support a permanent worker in their midst, for no worker should desire any greater remuneration than the average income of those supporting him. Therefore, if you have ten male Christians giving one-tenth of their income, no matter what it may be, you have sufficient to maintain and sustain a regular worker in their midst. That is God’s solution to the missionary problem. Wherever you have ten average male Chinese you have a situation where they ought to be independent and no longer leaning upon the help of God’s people at home. It is a scandal and a shame to see churches in India and in China today that have been in existence fifty years still looking to God’s people in Australia and England and America for their financial support. And why is it? Because the teachings of the Word of God have been neglected. It is because they have never been taught the foundation of Christian finance. No wonder the missionary world is calling out today that they are crippled for lack of funds! They need to be taught scriptural finance. That is why God appointed tithing. It is the solution of all financial problems in connection with His work. Where tithing is practiced there will never be any going into debt.
 
Is it true that there is no NT command to tithe?

Is there any other 'good and necessary' inference that can be derived from 1 Cor 9:13,14, other than that preachers of the gospel age are to make a living 'in the same manner' as the priests and Levites of the Mosaic age?

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

It seems to me that if you want to do away with tithing then you better be prepared to present a better way to provide a living for gospel preachers. (And according to Ps 19:7, the law of tithing is 'perfect')
 
Is it true that there is no NT command to tithe?

Is there any other 'good and necessary' inference that can be derived from 1 Cor 9:13,14, other than that preachers of the gospel age are to make a living 'in the same manner' as the priests and Levites of the Mosaic age?

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
“In the same manner” seems a bit strong for interpreting “even so” or “thus”. So I’m not sure I see the call for a tithe specifically in those words, even by good and necessary consequences. Paul earlier in the passage uses the example of muzzling the ox. This establishes the pattern of Paul’s use of the Mosaic code under the new covenant. Not an exact one-for-one.

It seems to me that if you want to do away with tithing then you better be prepared to present a better way to provide a living for gospel preachers. (And according to Ps 19:7, the law of tithing is 'perfect')

Psalm 19:7 also covers the laws regarding animal sacrifices and annual feast days, but that does not mean they are appropriate for us today.

As far as what to replace it with, this is only an issue if one assumes the tithe was in place during the early days of the church. The generosity of the church was well-known without mention of a tithe (Acts 4:32; 1 Cor. 16:1ff).
 
The first thing I thought of in the OP was, which tithe? I've always found this topic confusing.

Quote from that link:

However, for those who believe that tithing is also expected from the New Covenant Christian, the ONE tithe of ten percent can be the ONLY true and acceptable explanation.

I don't think this is necessarily true. What he is suggesting in this paragraph is that, because it is unreasonable to ask church members to give 23 1/3% of their income, then those who believe tithing extends to the New Covenant must necessarily ignore the plain reading of Scripture and make up a view of only one 10% tithe.

I think there is a better reason why those who believe tithing is valid would just consider it 10% and it has to do with the purpose of the various tithes and the progression of the Old Covenant into the New.

1) The first tithe was for the operation of the temple (supporting the priests, etc.) This would still be in operation since the church (the people) is called the temple of God and Paul insists that ministers of the gospel make their living from the gospel.

2) The second tithe was for the annual feasts. These feasts find their fulfillment in Christ and no longer take place. Therefore, the tithe for these feasts is no longer needed in the New Covenant.

3) The third tithe was every 3 years as a form of welfare for God's covenant people in the nation of Israel. Since God's covenant people is no longer a national entity, this tithe is also unnecessary.

Thus, only one tithe (10%) would remain in force.

BTW, I go back and forth over whether I believe the tithe should be in place or not. I will say that 10% is a good starting place even for those who believe the tithe has been abrogated.
 
Is it true that there is no NT command to tithe?

Is there any other 'good and necessary' inference that can be derived from 1 Cor 9:13,14, other than that preachers of the gospel age are to make a living 'in the same manner' as the priests and Levites of the Mosaic age?

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
“In the same manner” seems a bit strong for interpreting “even so” or “thus”. So I’m not sure I see the call for a tithe specifically in those words, even by good and necessary consequences. Paul earlier in the passage uses the example of muzzling the ox. This establishes the pattern of Paul’s use of the Mosaic code under the new covenant. Not an exact one-for-one.

I will concede that point. It is not a 'good and necessary inference' in and of itself.

It seems to me that if you want to do away with tithing then you better be prepared to present a better way to provide a living for gospel preachers. (And according to Ps 19:7, the law of tithing is 'perfect')

Psalm 19:7 also covers the laws regarding animal sacrifices and annual feast days, but that does not mean they are appropriate for us today.

Yes, there were some laws that were appropriate as 'types' but are no longer. However, Paul seems to hint that the law of tithing as a means for the support of God's workers is still appropriate today.

As far as what to replace it with, this is only an issue if one assumes the tithe was in place during the early days of the church. The generosity of the church was well-known without mention of a tithe (Acts 4:32; 1 Cor. 16:1ff).

This is where I have trouble. If there is no tithe, then the question becomes 'how generous' is generous enough?

The Lord has ordained that gospel preachers are to live off the offerings of the people. If we scrap tithing then what percentage are we going to bring to fulfill the Lord's appointment? If people tithe, then you only need 10 or 11 families to comfortably support a gospel preacher. If people offer 5%, then you need 20 families to support a gospel preacher. If people offer 1% then you need 100 families to support a gospel preacher. (How is a pastor going to effectively shepherd 100 families?)

Or, if people are to offer whatever they feel like, how can that be fair to the preacher's family? Try that with your plumber! "$100 for a new spigot? I was thinking I would just pay you whatever I feel like."

Once again, my appeal is this: If not tithing, then what? Give me something as perfect as tithing and I'm definitely on board.

BTW, I appreciated your response and your insight. It was very helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top