Is Tithing For Today?

[Luke2427]

Do you believe that tithing is for today? Why or why not?

Why wouldn't it be? We do still have an Old Testament and believe in it. We don't just do what the New Testament clearly says. Unless something is clearly restricted to an OT cultural context, Jesus has fulfilled the type and done away with it or the NT clearly says there is a more excellent way then we keep practicing it.

Church of Christ use the type of reasoning that people who do not believe in NT tithing use. They use it to condemn music in the church. They say, "We only find musical instruments used in worship in the OT. Not one single place does the NT tell us to use music in worship."

So what. The psalms still apply. We don't do away with ANY OT teaching until the NT gives us clear reason to do so.

 

[gb93433]

My wife and I give sacrificially, yes. It is not as sacrificial as others and it is not as sacrificial as we'd like. We make less than $50,000 combined and we have two kids. We haven't had a vacation since our honeymoon 5 years ago. In many cases, we live at the grace of other Christians (like our land-lady, herself a pastor's wife, that is renting us our house at a greatly reduced rate). My first year pastoring the church I now serve, I took no retirement and let many of my given allowances go unspent so that the church would not be burdened by my salary (we are in better financial shape now, however...not much better, though).

If I asked a poor person they would describe you as living in luxury. I think what you are doing is completely wrong with the church. You are not teaching them what you are already doing in your life. You are teaching them to be irresponsible and doing much the same thing we see parents doing with their children today. Employers and teachers will tell you that a generation of lazy children are being raised today because they are not teaching their children to be accountable. They can be taught accountability but it is not their parents doing the job.

People that want to grow will support a pastor. You are not teaching them responsibility. Years ago I was in charge of church planting in our association of churches. One of the pastors complained to me about how the church I pastored was a rich church and his was poor. I asked him he ever talked to them about giving. He had not. The next Sunday he preached on giving and from that point on they had money to do ministry. He is still at that church today.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

But you are confusing "tithing" in the Old Testament with generous giving in the New Testament. Certainly in the New Testament, money is what is given--and an abundance was joyfully given even from the destitute.

No, I am not confusing Old Testament tithing with New Testament giving. I do know the difference. Tithing was a set amount. It was necessity... to feed the Levites who were not permitted to own their own property. The Levites were to be dependent on the tithe brought in by the farmers and herders of the other tribes of Israel.

New Testament giving is not a set amount, except that Paul wrote that one should give that which he purposed in his own heart to give. In that sense, one was to give 100%... 100% of what he purposed to give.

Pastors should only teach the tithe as a principle of generous giving, not as a legal requirement. But pastors should challenge people in their congregations to give sacrificially and to increase their sacrificial giving.

No, Pastors should not teach the tithe as a principle of giving. Tithing was never a principle. It was a necessity. The New Testament christian is to give willingly and cheerfully, not grudgingly or of necessity.

Also, I think you are confusing the reason of the tithe/offering system of the Old Testament. Certainly it supported the Levites. But the principle of giving was not to support the Levites; the principle of giving was to demonstrate faith in God--that He would provide.

The tithe was not a principle. Never was. And it was the Levites, the ones receiving the tithe, who were told to walk in faith concerning the tithe. They were to receive no inheritance, but be fully dependent upon the tithe.

I hope you read the links that I posted; I think they'll help your understanding greatly.

I have a great understanding of the tithe. I have the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Blessings,

The Archangel[/QUOTE]

 

[AresMan]

Not with the reference to "Judah." Judah would have included the priests, but it is not only the priests.



Nope. Notice "Sons of Jacob." That is referring to the entire nation. If, as you suggest, the Levites are the only ones being addressed, we'd have expected "Sons of Levi."

So, you are suggesting that God cannot use generic terms when pinpointing sin?

Jos 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.

God can most certainly be saying that "Judah" and "Jerusalem" have transgressed with the primary target being the priests. Immediately after referring to "Judah" and "Jerusalem," God references the abominations on the altar where he specifically condemned the priests in chapter 1. Only the priests had access to the altar in the Temple/tabernacle. Kohathite Levites could enter the holiest of holies, but only if the altar and other sacred items were covered from their view. Other Levites could not enter the holiest place under any circumstance. Non-Levites could not even enter any of the holy place at all.

In the "old days" the entire nation was disobedient, not only Levites. In fact, the entire history of Israel proves-out that the entire nation (not only its priests) were willfully and woefully disobedient to the LORD.

I did not deny that the whole nation was transgressing, and I specifically stated this. However, the focus is on the duplicity of the priests for making this happen. Also, the chronological context of Malachi and Nehemiah completely proves that the priests were the ones robbing the tithes and offerings.

They were robbing God in offerings by "offering that which is torn, sick, and lame."
They were robbing God in tithes by stealing them from the storehouse that was supposed to feed the Levite families who rotated duties in the Temple approximately twice per year. They were feeding and housing Tobiah.

Nope. "The whole nation" is referring to Israel as a whole, not the priestly caste.

That may very well be in that the people were led astray to help the priests in their scheme.

The people themselves could not directly "rob" tithes from the storehouse. The people did not even put them there. The people brought their Levitical tithes to the Levitical cities (Numbers 18:20-24; Deuteronomy 26:12-15; Nehemiah 10:37). The Levites, in turn, brought their tithes to the priests (Numbers 18:26-32; Nehemiah 10:38).

The people never brought tithes to the storehouse. The people did bring firstfruits and certain offerings directly to the priests (Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Nehemiah 10:35-37,39).


The facts of the Law and the Temple storehouse system set up under king Hezekiah and revived under Nehemiah are very important to understanding what was going on during Malachi's ministry.

 

[AresMan]

New Testament giving is not a "tithe."

Agreed.

It is supposed to be greater than a tithe--at least in the sacrificial nature of New Testament giving.

Define "greater than a tithe." The tithe from landowners of the annual increase of crops and livestock and a wage earner giving a certain amount of earned monetary income are NOT comparable. They are two completely different metrics. They are apples and oranges.

If ANY comparison can be made to the tithe of the Law and money, it would be more along the lines of on the profit of a business. Only landowners tithed. They did not tithe of what they earned, they tithed from their yearly profits. During the course of the year they had their income and they outgoing expenses. After all this is factored, what was left--the increase--was the agricultural "profit."

Yes, I am a pastor. No I don't have to justify giving. Giving is expected in the New Testament and it is expected to be sacrificial giving.

No disagreement here. I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise. The argument is really over what does the Bible actually say.

We are supposed to give cheerfully, sacrificially, and abundantly, but this has zilch to do with "tithing" in any way, shape, or form. The two subjects are entirely unrelated.

 

[AresMan]

Why wouldn't it be? We do still have an Old Testament and believe in it. We don't just do what the New Testament clearly says. Unless something is clearly restricted to an OT cultural context, Jesus has fulfilled the type and done away with it or the NT clearly says there is a more excellent way then we keep practicing it.

Church of Christ use the type of reasoning that people who do not believe in NT tithing use. They use it to condemn music in the church. They say, "We only find musical instruments used in worship in the OT. Not one single place does the NT tell us to use music in worship."

So what. The psalms still apply. We don't do away with ANY OT teaching until the NT gives us clear reason to do so.

True, and the New Testament DOES "do away" with the tithe. If it did not, we would have to follow the Law. We would have to actually do what the Bible itself really says about the tithe, and not some made-up, "spiritualized" concept. We would have to:
1. Be landowners
2. Live within the boundaries of the nation of Israel
3. Tithe the annual increase of our crops and livestock
4. Observe the seven-year cycle, including the third-year "year of tithing," the Feast of Tabernacles, the seventh year of Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee.

There are NO exceptions to this. The Bible is very clear about the commands to tithe. It never changed the tithe to anything else and called it a "tithe." Either you must do exactly what the Mosaic Law said, or you do not.

The New Testament explicitly did away with the tithe:

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi [no exceptions], who receive the office of the priesthood [church ministers are not "priests," all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) and Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews 9:11)] , have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law [the Mosaic Law that we are not under (Ephesians 2:11-16)], that is, of their brethren [only Israelites were subject to this command], though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

The tithes of the Law were specifically linked to the office of the Levites. Because Christ did away with the Levitical priesthood with His one-time sacrifice, He is seated in the heavenlies, and He is able to sanctify and save His people to the uttermost with His effectual mediation, no tithes are needed to sustain His priesthood.

Yes, Christians need to give to ministry, but this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "tithes." Period.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

True, and the New Testament DOES "do away" with the tithe. If it did not, we would have to follow the Law. We would have to actually do what the Bible itself really says about the tithe, and not some made-up, "spiritualized" concept. We would have to:
1. Be landowners
2. Live within the boundaries of the nation of Israel
3. Tithe the annual increase of our crops and livestock
4. Observe the seven-year cycle, including the third-year "year of tithing," the Feast of Tabernacles, the seventh year of Sabbath, and the year of Jubilee.

There are NO exceptions to this. The Bible is very clear about the commands to tithe. It never changed the tithe to anything else and called it a "tithe." Either you must do exactly what the Mosaic Law said, or you do not.

The New Testament explicitly did away with the tithe:

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi [no exceptions], who receive the office of the priesthood [church ministers are not "priests," all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) and Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews 9:11)] , have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law [the Mosaic Law that we are not under (Ephesians 2:11-16)], that is, of their brethren [only Israelites were subject to this command], though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

The tithes of the Law were specifically linked to the office of the Levites. Because Christ did away with the Levitical priesthood with His one-time sacrifice, He is seated in the heavenlies, and He is able to sanctify and save His people to the uttermost with His effectual mediation, no tithes are needed to sustain His priesthood.

Yes, Christians need to give to ministry, but this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "tithes." Period.

Exactly! Thank you!

We can look into the New Testament to see money was not tithed also by the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself:

Matthew 23:23 (KJV) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Notice when Jesus told the Pharisees what they tithed. Not one item named was money. And Jesus did not rebuke them saying 'Ye neglected to tithe of your money.'

Obviously, Jesus knew the tithe did not consist of money, else He would have mentioned it in His addressing of the Pharisees.

 

[AresMan]

Notice when Jesus told the Pharisees what they tithed. Not one item named was money. And Jesus did not rebuke them saying 'Ye neglected to tithe of your money.'

Obviously, Jesus knew the tithe did not consist of money, else He would have mentioned it in His addressing of the Pharisees.

Yes, and those who gloss over that important detail also miss the nuance of their tithing. The Law never commanded people to tithe of small garden herbs. The Pharisees were notorious for expecting people to do cumbersome things where they believed the Law was vague. They taught the people (either by word or by example) that they had to exercise the labor to calculate a meticulous tenth of all herbs grown in gardens.

When Jesus told them "this ought ye to have done," He meant that, if they were going to go out of the way to do "more" than the Law required, they should not have done that to the detriment of mercy and justice. Doing more than the Law required was good, not bad, provided that the whole Law was regarded. They could not treat the poor badly and show favoritism contrary to the Law, and expect God to bless them because they meticulously tithed of garden spices.

 

[Darrenss1]

We are supposed to give cheerfully, sacrificially, and abundantly, but this has zilch to do with "tithing" in any way, shape, or form. The two subjects are entirely unrelated.

Exactly that is why when I hear sermons on tithing the actual "offering" amount is said to be above the tithe. This is why I can't accept that the "tithe" of the christian is really based on the "principle" of the OT landowners tithe, makes no sense. The tithe is a debt to be payed, an offering is a freewill gift. Calling tithing a principle does nothing to really change what you are actually doing. I would say that the majority of christians that tithe today do so because they believe they "owe God" the tenth. In order to really "give" an actual freewill offering one must first pay off their tenth and what ever they give above is their real offering.

Calling tithing a principle, makes no difference when it is still presented as a weekly debt to be payed. That said, it is no longer a principle but a modified adaption based on the Mosiac Law of the tithe. A true tithe can never be an offering or giving when the terms simply do not fit.

Darren

 

[AresMan]

Exactly that is why when I hear sermons on tithing the actual "offering" amount is said to be above the tithe. This is why I can't accept that the "tithe" of the christian is really based on the "principle" of the OT landowners tithe, makes no sense. The tithe is a debt to be payed, an offering is a freewill gift. Calling tithing a principle does nothing to really change what you are actually doing. I would say that the majority of christians that tithe today do so because they believe they "owe God" the tenth. In order to really "give" an actual freewill offering one must first pay off their tenth and what ever they give above is their real offering.

I agree, but I would clarify what "offering" means. When most people refer to "tithes and offerings," they are referring to the false concept that they are both portions of the same metric. They falsely assert that "tithes" are 10% of one's monetary income and that "offerings" are additional monetary contributions. This is not the case.

The "tithes and offerings" in Malachi 3:8 are two different concepts.
The tithes were the tenth part of the Levitical tenth of crops and livestock that were brought by the Levites to the storehouse chambers with the priests' supervision.
The offerings were sacrifices burnt on the Temple altar that the priests were profaning. One of the sources of these offerings were from the tithes themselves.

The purpose of the tithes in Malachi 3:8 was food for the rotating Levites.
The purpose of the offerings in Malachi 3:8 was for burnt sacrifices.
The two most likely had significant overlap in source.

The idea that the tithes and offerings in Malachi 3:8 were separate, but adjunct "funds" contributed from the same source of "revenue" is completely unfounded.

Yes, there were "freewill offerings" described in the Law, but these were not the "offerings" in Malachi 3:8. These offerings were burnt sacrifices taken from the tithes themselves.

Calling tithing a principle, makes no difference when it is still presented as a weekly debt to be payed. That said, it is no longer a principle but a modified adaption based on the Mosiac Law of the tithe. A true tithe can never be an offering or giving when the terms simply do not fit.

Correct, with emphasis on the words modified and adaptation. The prevalent teaching today of "tithes and offerings" is utterly absent from Scripture.

 

[dawilson8655]

Pagan Christianity is a great book that addresses where the modern tithe came from. It's by Frank Viola and George Barna.

I agree with them that the tithe is Biblical, but not New Testament. Frequently in the Bible, we see the NT church give more than they "should have" like in Acts.

"Name-it-claim-it" preachers overuse the "will a man rob God?" verses far too often to fund their ministries. It's manipulation and/or eisigesis. Most I believe comes from ignorance though.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I agree with them that the tithe is Biblical, but not New Testament. Frequently in the Bible, we see the NT church give more than they "should have" like in Acts.

In the transition period, (Acts) the NT Church did not give more than they "should have."

In Acts 4, they were all in on accord and agreed that nothing that they owned truly belonged to them. They sold their properties willingly,... they were not brainwashed into doing so. And the money that was laid at the Apostle's feet was used wherever there was necessity amongst God's people.

When one is doing something for the Lord, one cannot give more than one should give.

I am not a name it and claim it preacher, nor am I a word faith preacher. But I believe that God will not see the righteous forsaken or His seed begging bread. God cares for the sparrows, He cares for us more according to the words of Jesus Christ. He will provide all our need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Many give because of the false teaching that God will give 'a hundredfold' if they give. God never promised a hundredfold in return for the giving of money. But He did promise to meet our need.

 

[gb93433]

God never promised a hundredfold in return for the giving of money. But He did promise to meet our need.

Food and shelter.

 

[kyredneck]

My wife and I give sacrificially, yes. It is not as sacrificial as others and it is not as sacrificial as we'd like. We make less than $50,000 combined and we have two kids. We haven't had a vacation since our honeymoon 5 years ago. In many cases, we live at the grace of other Christians (like our land-lady, herself a pastor's wife, that is renting us our house at a greatly reduced rate). My first year pastoring the church I now serve, I took no retirement and let many of my given allowances go unspent so that the church would not be burdened by my salary.......

If I asked a poor person they would describe you as living in luxury. I think what you are doing is completely wrong with the church. You are not teaching them what you are already doing in your life. You are teaching them to be irresponsible and doing much the same thing we see parents doing with their children today. Employers and teachers will tell you that a generation of lazy children are being raised today because they are not teaching their children to be accountable. They can be taught accountability but it is not their parents doing the job.

People that want to grow will support a pastor. You are not teaching them responsibility. Years ago I was in charge of church planting in our association of churches. One of the pastors complained to me about how the church I pastored was a rich church and his was poor. I asked him he ever talked to them about giving. He had not. The next Sunday he preached on giving and from that point on they had money to do ministry. He is still at that church today.

I believe what Archangel and his wife has done is to be commended. I do hope the Lord blesses them for it. By relieving the burden on the Church he has followed the example as set by Paul.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I believe what Archangel and his wife has done is to be commended. I do hope the Lord blesses them for it. By relieving the burden on the Church he has followed the example as set by Paul.

He is to be commended. But that's another subject. The subject of this thread is "Is Tithing For Today?"

Scripturally speaking, I cannot say that tithing is for today. Especially not for Gentile believers who are not to be put under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.

 

[gb93433]

I believe what Archangel and his wife has done is to be commended. I do hope the Lord blesses them for it. By relieving the burden on the Church he has followed the example as set by Paul.

While what he does may be commendable if they are unable to do anything. If they are able then he is hindering them.

In most cases people can find ways to give more if they really want to.

 

[The Archangel]

If I asked a poor person they would describe you as living in luxury. I think what you are doing is completely wrong with the church. You are not teaching them what you are already doing in your life. You are teaching them to be irresponsible and doing much the same thing we see parents doing with their children today. Employers and teachers will tell you that a generation of lazy children are being raised today because they are not teaching their children to be accountable. They can be taught accountability but it is not their parents doing the job.

People that want to grow will support a pastor. You are not teaching them responsibility. Years ago I was in charge of church planting in our association of churches. One of the pastors complained to me about how the church I pastored was a rich church and his was poor. I asked him he ever talked to them about giving. He had not. The next Sunday he preached on giving and from that point on they had money to do ministry. He is still at that church today.

This comment is not worth addressing. You are obviously talking about something about which you have no earthly idea.

While what he does may be commendable if they are unable to do anything. If they are able then he is hindering them.

In most cases people can find ways to give more if they really want to.

This comment is equally ridiculous. I have no idea why you are seeking to attack me (personally, I might add) for being a pastor who teaches that a 10% starting point is good for most people (though not a legal requirement) and for giving at least 10% myself.

I have no idea what the people of our church give (with one exception, but that is another story). I make it a point to not know what our people give. I preach that 10% is a good starting point--if you're not there yet, shoot for 10%; if you're already there, shoot for 12% and more. Repeatedly I preach to give sacrificially, understanding that a greater sacrifice might be made by a fixed-income person who is giving around 5% than by a person making $100,000/yr (and there are likely none making that amount in our church) and giving 10%.

So I have no intention to listen to you holier-than-thou drivel when 1) you do not know me; 2) you have never listened to me preach a message on giving; 3) My family and I give at least 10% and I routinely forgo a significant portion of my allowances (last year--2009--at least $4,000).

The Archangel

 

[gb93433]

This comment is not worth addressing. You are obviously talking about something about which you have no earthly idea.

Why are you so bothered? A few hours I talked with a man who told me about a time when the a church was unable to pay its pastor any ($0) money but gave him food etc. to meet his needs. Have you been that low?

This comment is equally ridiculous. I have no idea why you are seeking to attack me (personally, I might add) for being a pastor who teaches that a 10% starting point is good for most people (though not a legal requirement) and for giving at least 10% myself.

My point was that if you had more experience and awareness you would know that what one finds as poverty, another finds as luxury. Were you not the person who said you gave sacrificially? If you read the NT you would find in 1 Cor. 11 and other places people who were starving. A few years ago I got to know one of the Lost Boys who came to America. I had several conversations with him about how he lived and what he did. He told me about his trust in God and how they prayed. Let him tell you what giving is. I worked for a man who made about one million a year and gave almost all of it away. He lived in a home that would be worth probably about $110,000 today in a residential area where average people lived and drove an average car. I never heard him once ever talk about sacrificial giving.

So I have no intention to listen to you holier-than-thou drivel when 1) you do not know me; 2) you have never listened to me preach a message on giving; 3) My family and I give at least 10% and I routinely forgo a significant portion of my allowances (last year--2009--at least $4,000).

Where did I ever mention or even give a glimpse of sacrificial giving? Were you not the one who brought it up? I have a friend who told me about people starving where he once lived and he would have never been able to save enough money in a lifetime for a plane ticket. Now tell us about your sacrificial living and giving.

 

[sag38]

In my personal life there was a time where money came up short at the end of the month. I still had enough to give at least 10% of my take home pay with just a little left over. But, how would I live on such a small amount. So, I held back. The transmission on the truck went out. The bill was $800.00 and a lot of heart ache. Come next month I came up really short again but there was enough to give at least 10% but my bottom line would be even worse than the month before so I held back again. This time the carburetor went bad. The bill was $500.00. The end of the month came and I had very little but still enough to tithe. The bank account would be below $25.00 if I did. But, I gave. I figured I couldn't afford not too. And, God took care of me. I always had enough to pay the bills and an abundance. I've given 10% and above ever since. I can't say it's a NT command but I do know that I cannot afford not to tithe and after all these years cannot see myself doing any differently.

 

[gb93433]

In my personal life there was a time where money came up short at the end of the month. I still had enough to give at least 10% of my take home pay with just a little left over. But, how would I live on such a small amount. So, I held back. The transmission on the truck went out. The bill was $800.00 and a lot of heart ache. Come next month I came up really short again but there was enough to give at least 10% but my bottom line would be even worse than the month before so I held back again. This time the carburetor went bad. The bill was $500.00. The end of the month came and I had very little but still enough to tithe. The bank account would be below $25.00 if I did. But, I gave. I figured I couldn't afford not too. And, God took care of me. I always had enough to pay the bills and an abundance. I've given 10% and above ever since. I can't say it's a NT command but I do know that I cannot afford not to tithe and after all these years cannot see myself doing any differently.

[FONT=&quot] R.G. LeTourneau, the Christian earth-moving machinery manufacturer who died in 1969, had much the same experience.[/FONT]