Views on NT tithing?

Alright, it's pre-law, meaning it's under grace, meaning it's for Christians of the NT age, meaning it's for us.

So... let's do an Abraham. Let's go find a region, kill all the people and take all the spoils, and then look up a local priest and give him a tenth of sll the spoils. It's under grace, not the Law, so let's do it.

 

1. This is a one-time act of Abraham (unless you have evidence that Abraham was going to war on a consistent basis).
2. This tithe was of the spoils of war, not of income.
3. Abraham gave the other 90% of the spoils to the king of Sodom.
4. There is no indication that this is a command (to Abraham or anyone else).

It's also not commanded. I am certainly not planning to go to war anytime soon.

It would be nice if you cited your souce:

Arthur V. Babbs, THE LAW OF THE TITHE : As Set Forth in the Old Testament (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912)

These are all religions rooted in government. Abraham indeed tithed to Melchizedek because of Middle East government at that time. The same applied to Israel when they desired a king:

As the tithe of the Law funded the Levitical priestly government established by God, so when Israel wanted a king to be like other nations (who had government tithe taxes as was customary), their king would demand his tithe tax. Israel would now be forced to deal with two tithe taxes: (1) they were still under the Law to provide for the Levitical priesthood and God had not yet disannulled this, and (2) the king would demand his tithe. The tithe is attached to government, not to disparate autonomous local churches subject to government.

And I'm sure you can prove that this verse is talking about the tithe Law? Right. The Gentiles weren't obeying the tithe Law because they were not providing for the Levitical priesthood.

The firstfruits law is not the tithe law. They are different.

The firstfruits was a basketful of the first picked fruit of harvest presented before the priest. The firstfruits giver was then to eat it himself and share it with the Levites and foreigners.

This is the firstfruits Law to which Solomon was referring when he said

The fact that so many nations have decided upon a tenth tax argues that the tithe all throughout history has always been defined in the context of national government.

The fact that Paul didn't mention tithing is because the Jews were already still tithing to the Temple under the Law of the Jewish government permitted by the Roman republic. The tithe had nothing to do with financing the church. All mention in the New Testament of financing the church was simply in terms of generous and cheerful giving.

You can see whatever you want, but this is still reaching. The Macedonian church supported Paul with cheerful giving. No mention of the tithe.

And as I explained in a previous post, I Corinthians 16:1-2 in its full context does not indicate weekly church plate passing or tithes. There is no indication that this was "in addition to" anything. This was simply of meeting a need with planned budgeting and collection.

I am not justifying being a tightwad at all. I am simply saying there is no Scriptural proof for the church net/gross/gross+benefits/revenue/profits/etc. income "tithing" myth. I believe in generous and abundant giving. If needs are not met, there is not enough giving (whether or not a so-called "tithe" was applied). The same logic used for preaching "tithing" as necessary to finance the church is the same logic used for preaching "works salvation" as necessary to avoid antinomianism. It doesn't matter what "makes good preaching." What matters is Scriptural accuracy.

 

Pre-law = under grace. Wrong, it is all under grace. The Mosaic Law is a covenant given to God's people to help them live out their lives before God; it was never option # 2 for being saved.

The point here with Hebrew 7 is that Abraham not being under the law in the sense of having an obligation to pay a tithe did it anyway. The circumstances under which he paid the tithe are not relevant, especially due to the fact that the author of Hebrews is looking at the principle of tithing in the Genesis 14 passage (along with other issues).

 

I like to know where you find in the scriptures that geneous and cheerful giving was the terms of financing the church. If you are going to point to 2 Cor. 8-9 you are wrong in the sense that giving in that context is not about financing the local church, but about the special collection to the church in Jerusalem. The generosity pointed there is about their extra giving to a special cause.

Mildbanter

 

How about scripture for today, which most likely has already been put forth.

The 'tithe" is past and future. We under Grace should give at least ten percent, if possible or desired, and if not the harvest will be sparse. Of course if we give more the harvest will be greater. God loves a cheerful giver. "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
7. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver, (II Corinthians 9:6-7)".

 

I guess my question would be (if there was no tithe and only offering and that to go to other churches) how would the Pastors or Elders of those churches (who sent out the offerings) be paid as the scriptures state they are to be?? Where did they get the princples to that it should even be done??

Could it be that the OT sheds light on this. I'll bet it does!
God people gave the tithes (multiple tithes for differeing things - including a building fund tithe) and the priests lived off of some of what was given to God - but if you think about it, it was an abundance. Preists arethe OT version of the NT Preachers, as both are called shepards of God fold. The tithes were used to maintain, teach, edify, and (in a sense) evangelize those around them. So we see their was a system they already understood and one that took care of Gods people based on the principle of tithing or stewardship.

But if you want to get down to it, the amount of tithes they gave (if I remember correctly) was about 35 to 40% of the annual increase (or what we hold as income) and that didn't include the offerings (which COULD estimate as high as 60% of thier annual income.) So I say if we in the NT are not bound to the tithe but to the offerings and since that which we have is a better covenant we as believers aught to be giving at least 50% of our annual income in self sacrifice and honor to God from who it was given. They (the OT saints) had to do it maditorily but we do it out of our love for what God has done to and for us.

What say ye... Let us do away with the tithe and preach an offering of at least 50% your annual income?? WHy not, don't you trust God to supply all your needs!

 

No. I wouldn't have an income-- wouldn't bother with anyting to attain it-- if I trusted God to supply all my needs. Do you?

 

Amen to your post and understanding of Hebrews 7:5-10 showing Abraham's great-grandson, Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek in the person of Abraham. I personally have not been called to see that a huge building is a must to show the world just how much I do love my Lord. Some of what I have, which is not all that much, goes to others that also put forth the word of justification through faith gospel, by the grace of God.

Those that feel they must give ten percent must do so for they see they have been commanded to do so. From a young age I was taught this, but the more I read His Word, I could see He was not talking to me, but to those of His that were under the Law.

Enjoyed.

 

Now Alcott, you should know that a man is supposed to provide (for himself and or family) This necessitates that you have an income by which God has determind one of his means for giving provision to your well being. So God supplying all your needs through the means of income is part and partial to our resposibility and His faithfulness.
The real question isn't about how much of your income but what is yours and what is actaully Gods. If it is Gods, should we not take what we need from that means He has given for an income and seek out beyond our neseccities what we should keep - rather than the converse of what should we give God??!! And if our income does not meet the needs of our necessities God is faithful in our hour of need to sustain us AS LONG as we are faithful and doing all we can to attain that which is needed.

The portion from the last paragraph on (to which you responded) was me being facetious.

Oh, Yes - I trust God to supply all my needs and have found His absolutely faithful no matter how much of our money and even deeply into our saving (even cleaning it out) He always provides for us to provide more again.