Is Tithing required by the New Testament?

[Stan1953]

I have seen pastors tell the poor on welfare and disability to tithe then have the church give them money back. that makes no sense.the person that I knew that did that died blessed as she helped all that she could but was never healed and stayed on tanf. god did take of her but I aslo know others who didn't give and it was the same.(tithing)

I think the point is to LEARN to do what is right in the sight of God and not point out the failures of men. No MAN is good or righteous.

 

[Kenny_ms]

I think the point is to LEARN to do what is right in the sight of God and not point out the failures of men. No MAN is good or righteous.

I lean towards thinking it's a good idea to not only point out the failures (of course they would call it success) but the men themselves.... yeah, name names, expose and warn. As to no man being good and righteous, you are right and they can point out my failures anytime they like.

People are warned of murderers and especially pedophiles all the time, why not the worse kind of thieves? I'll let God judge them and I'll stick to exposing.

So my little contribution will be, I thought Copeland was the little g man? Guess we have more little g's running around here than I originally thought.

 

[YosefHayim]

I lean towards thinking it's a good idea to not only point out the failures (of course they would call it success) but the men themselves.... yeah, name names, expose and warn. As to no man being good and righteous, you are right and they can point out my failures anytime they like.

People are warned of murderers and especially pedophiles all the time, why not the worse kind of thieves? I'll let God judge them and I'll stick to exposing.

So my little contribution will be, I thought Copeland was the little g man? Guess we have more little g's running around here than I originally thought.

Ephesians 5:11 says not to have fellowship with darkness, but to expose darkness.

 

[jasonc]

You'll have to put some context into your posts....what curse?
So you think Jesus leaders what they should have done or do, is not applicable to all people?
Yes, and He fulfilled the OC law when He died and rose from the dead.
Yes, it was rendered obsolete because the priesthood was no longer required due to Jesus becoming our sole mediator.
As I explained, tithing existed BEFORE the written law, so it was a principle of God, just like sowing and reaping, that was NOT expunged.
Tithing simply means to GIVE 10% to where God directs you to give. I really can't comment on what you pastor teaches.

uhm most teach that it has a suffering promise if you don't.

 

[jasonc]

I think the point is to LEARN to do what is right in the sight of God and not point out the failures of men. No MAN is good or righteous.

uhm so we shouldn't strive for consistency? we shouldn't take tithes from the poor only to give back what they just gave? even the IRS doesn't tax the poor and force them to pay for what they are given by the tanf system when they cant!

 

[jasonc]

malachi 3

 

[Deborah13]

As I explained, tithing existed BEFORE the written law, so it was a principle of God, just like sowing and reaping, that was NOT expunged.

I agree that sowing and reaping has and is the principle. I also believe that the reaping is contingent on God's will in that person's life, which Could, be the condition of the their heart/soul. I believe that is why Paul says to give voluntarily with a joyous heart. He wants to see them get blessed. Blessed people can bless others.

What did Abraham financially sow before he reaped the spoils of war?
If we believe that Abraham's giving Melchizedek 10% of the spoils of a war is the same things as our paycheck, then why do we not give the other 90% back to our employer? We wouldn't want our employer to be able to say that he made us rich. The spoils of war included people, did Abraham give Melchizedek a tenth of the people?
On top of the that Abraham, said that he was allowing his generals to keep their spoils of war, that they had captured. No mention of them tithing.
Abraham was not temporal man in his views. If one takes this instance as a commandment to tithe of their labors then one would do as Abraham did; give the rest back, wouldn't he? That would be the Whole command, wouldn't it?
I don't see how that is any different than teaching tithing today by the Law and not teaching all of the tithing Law.
imo...
If leaders teach tithing of a tenth in anyway, other than voluntarily (not by commandment), they are expecting the people in their flock to have more faith, that God will provide the needs of their family, than the preacher does for his family and finances of the church.

 

[Stan1953]

I lean towards thinking it's a good idea to not only point out the failures (of course they would call it success) but the men themselves.... yeah, name names, expose and warn. As to no man being good and righteous, you are right and they can point out my failures anytime they like.
People are warned of murderers and especially pedophiles all the time, why not the worse kind of thieves? I'll let God judge them and I'll stick to exposing.
So my little contribution will be, I thought Copeland was the little g man? Guess we have more little g's running around here than I originally thought.

Yes, to expose them to the unlearned or unschooled is good, I just meant on here where most probably know these charlatans.
We must indeed point out false teachers, but the actual teachers along with what is false about their teaching. Sadly MEN do it wrong all the time, and pointing out their mistakes/errors IMO is not useful in proving any one POV is wrong.

 

[Stan1953]

I agree that sowing and reaping has and is the principle. I also believe that the reaping is contingent on God's will in that person's life, which Could, be the condition of the their heart/soul. I believe that is why Paul says to give voluntarily with a joyous heart. He wants to see them get blessed. Blessed people can bless others.

What did Abraham financially sow before he reaped the spoils of war?
If we believe that Abraham's giving Melchizedek 10% of the spoils of a war is the same things as our paycheck, then why do we not give the other 90% back to our employer? We wouldn't want our employer to be able to say that he made us rich. The spoils of war included people, did Abraham give Melchizedek a tenth of the people?
On top of the that Abraham, said that he was allowing his generals to keep their spoils of war, that they had captured. No mention of them tithing.
Abraham was not temporal man in his views. If one takes this instance as a commandment to tithe of their labors then one would do as Abraham did; give the rest back, wouldn't he? That would be the Whole command, wouldn't it?
I don't see how that is any different than teaching tithing today by the Law and not teaching all of the tithing Law.
imo...
If leaders teach tithing of a tenth in anyway, other than voluntarily (not by commandment), they are expecting the people in their flock to have more faith, that God will provide the needs of their family, than the preacher does for his family and finances of the church.

Abraham followed the principle of tithing, not to reap anything. It was a comparison I was using, not an analogy.
IF WE BELIEVE? Sorry I believe all the Bible.
Again relating to an old principle of God means we have to make it applicable in how we use it today. We don't know what happened to the people but Abraham took nothing except what his men ate and their personal share, GEN 14:24 (NIV).
The Bible says Abraham gave a tenth of EVERYTHING. Gen 14:20 (NIV)
I can't speculate of what Abraham would have done, I can only see what he did. I never said we can take this one instance as a command. I said it shows tithing was a principle of God before it was in the written Mosaic/Levitical law. When it got written down it expanded a great deal in how it was defined and followed.
If leaders taught everything properly, we wouldn't have so much confusion and heresy in the church, but again men fail.
God and His universal laws do NOT. Thank God!

 

[Stan1953]

uhm most teach that it has a suffering promise if you don't.

Most is who, and what is it they teach?

 

[Stan1953]

uhm so we shouldn't strive for consistency? we shouldn't take tithes from the poor only to give back what they just gave? even the IRS doesn't tax the poor and force them to pay for what they are given by the tanf system when they cant!

Jason please read my posts and don't equivocate about what I say. We aren't talking about government taxes or social programs for the poor.

 

[Stan1953]

malachi 3

That's in the OC Law which is no longer applicable. Of course if someone who doesn't have a problem with accepting the truth from God reads this today, they wouldn't really have a problem with what it says IMO. Principles of God are universal and timeless.

 

[Kenny_ms]

We must indeed point out false teachers, but the actual teachers along with what is false about their teaching.

I'm most likely not going to mention a name unless the "teacher" has gone way over the line.

 

[jasonc]

That's in the OC Law which is no longer applicable. Of course if someone who doesn't have a problem with accepting the truth from God reads this today, they wouldn't really have a problem with what it says IMO. Principles of God are universal and timeless.

Most pastors quote that.mime does and and any church that teaches that.I read a link on why Christians should tithe that came up.also on tanf.that isn't eqivocation.my wife is disabled and you are saying to tithe
Monica has her kids on schips .she has given offering.did it last Sunday.income is income.ssi is paid by your taxes.

 

[Stan1953]

I'm most likely not going to mention a name unless the "teacher" has gone way over the line.

I understand that on here, but I meant more in dealing directly with people who are being swayed by their false teaching.

 

[Stan1953]

Most pastors quote that.mime does and and any church that teaches that.I read a link on why Christians should tithe that came up.also on tanf.that isn't eqivocation.my wife is disabled and you are saying to tithe
Monica has her kids on schips .she has given offering.did it last Sunday.income is income.ssi is paid by your taxes.

Well again, NOT my experience in the 44+ years I have been saved, but as I said, that men teach it wrong is not acceptable, but as it is a principle of God's, we must learn how it should guide us in our financial or resource affairs.
As God has written all these things on our hearts under His NC, what you do or don't do is definitely between you and God.
All I am advocating is that the PRINCIPLE of tithe is still a valid principle of God.

 

[jasonc]

Well again, NOT my experience in the 44+ years I have been saved, but as I said, that men teach it wrong is not acceptable, but as it is a principle of God's, we must learn how it should guide us in our financial or resource affairs.
As God has written all these things on our hearts under His NC, what you do or don't do is definitely between you and God.
All I am advocating is that the PRINCIPLE of tithe is still a valid principle of God.

that is rare then since every church that tithes teaches it that way.

but Deborah has a point. did Abraham tithe when he wasn't gaining spoils? the bible doesn't say that. that is where she is coming from. I do know people who have given and weren't raised out any poverty situation any time soon. I have also seen some be blessed when they did tithe.

 

[jasonc]

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/practical/tithing.php

 

[Deborah13]

I never said we can take this one instance as a command.

Maybe we see laws differently. This was our conversation.

It doesn't negate that law of God that existed before the OT/OC was written

What law are you referring to?

The law of tithing found in Gen 14:20

I responded with the facts that I see in those scriptures.

but the spiritual law of tithe was already established as Abraham showed. I'm not sure what you are referring to in giving 90% back to the King he took it from?
Gen 14:17 (NIV) shows who Abraham fought against, and he did NOT give anything back to them. What he did was tell the king of Sodom he was not interested in any of the spoils. Gen 14:21-24 (NIV)

You are correct. He didn't give the people he conquered back the spoils of war. He give them back to the king of Sodom, who had lost them to the other conquering army. My point is he didn't keep the other 90%, he returned it.

The Bible says Abraham gave a tenth of EVERYTHING. Gen 14:20 (NIV)

So a tenth of ALL the spoils. Here is John Gill's Commentary and Adam Clarke's says the same about where the tenth came from.
"or what Abram was obliged unto, but was a voluntary action, and not out of his own substance, but out of the spoils of the enemy, and to testify his gratitude to God: this was imitated by the Heathens in later times; so the Tarentines, having got a victory over the Peucetians, sent the tenth (of the spoil) to Delphos "

I can't speculate of what Abraham would have done, I can only see what he did.

I'm going to speculate, that Abram did not bring all his substance, flocks of animals, etc. with him, when he traveled to fight a war. It would be unlikely that he would have been able to overtake (catch up to) the other army, if he had. And I'm going to speculate, that the king of Sodom met him when he return to Sodom with Lot. (Gen. 14:16-17) He took Lot home to Sodom.
Gen. 14:13 - John Gill's Commentary
"for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite; see Gen_13:18; it was about forty miles from Sodom, but from it to Dan, whither he pursued the four kings, and where he overtook, fought, and smote them, is by some computed one hundred and twenty four miles (d): this Mamre, from whom the plain or grove of oaks were called,"

In conclusion, I would say that you see these scriptures as teaching a compulsory tenth being paid from all Abram's personal wealth. I say compulsory because, to me, a law means it is compulsory.
I see that this tenth was offered from the spoils of war as a voluntary, thanks offering to God for protecting him and giving him the victory.
Gen 14:20 and blessed is God Most High, who hath delivered thine adversaries into thy hand;' and he giveth to him a tenth of all.

You shall have the last word, if you choose. I've said my piece on this teaching.
Blessings

 

[Stan1953]

Maybe we see laws differently. This was our conversation.
I responded with the facts that I see in those scriptures.

Well we must, because I don't see what you are driving at? Gen 14 was not a one time command, it existed as a principle, not a written law. Obviously at one point in time God communicated this principle to Abraham or his ancestors. This is why I try to differentiate between the WRITTEN law and God's verbal laws I call PRINCIPLES. I can't be sure, but I don't think the law/principle of sowing & reaping is in the written law in the OT.

You are correct. He didn't give the people he conquered back the spoils of war. He give them back to the king of Sodom, who had lost them to the other conquering army. My point is he didn't keep the other 90%, he returned it.

Yes, exactly, for the reasons He gave, but He did give Melchizedek 10% of it, just NOT the people.

So a tenth of ALL the spoils. Here is John Gill's Commentary and Adam Clarke's says the same about where the tenth came from.
"or what Abram was obliged unto, but was a voluntary action, and not out of his own substance, but out of the spoils of the enemy, and to testify his gratitude to God: this was imitated by the Heathens in later times; so the Tarentines, having got a victory over the Peucetians, sent the tenth (of the spoil) to Delphos "

I'll trust that Gill and Clarke know what they are talking about.

I'm going to speculate, that Abram did not bring all his substance, flocks of animals, etc. with him, when he traveled to fight a war. It would be unlikely that he would have been able to overtake (catch up to) the other army, if he had. And I'm going to speculate, that the king of Sodom met him when he return to Sodom with Lot. (Gen. 14:16-17) He took Lot home to Sodom.
Gen. 14:13 - John Gill's Commentary
"for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite; see Gen_13:18; it was about forty miles from Sodom, but from it to Dan, whither he pursued the four kings, and where he overtook, fought, and smote them, is by some computed one hundred and twenty four miles (d): this Mamre, from whom the plain or grove of oaks were called,"

I wouldn't call that speculation, as it was evidenced in v13 that he only brought his men to fight.

In conclusion, I would say that you see these scriptures as teaching a compulsory tenth being paid from all Abram's personal wealth. I say compulsory because, to me, a law means it is compulsory.
I see that this tenth was offered from the spoils of war as a voluntary, thanks offering to God for protecting him and giving him the victory.
Gen 14:20 and blessed is God Most High, who hath delivered thine adversaries into thy hand;' and he giveth to him a tenth of all.
You shall have the last word, if you choose. I've said my piece on this teaching.
Blessings

No, as I said initially, I see these verses as confirming that the principle existed BEFORE the written law, so when people say the written law is no longer in effect in the NT, it doesn't mean tithing isn't, just as it doesn't mean sowing & reaping or divorce isn't.
Thanks for the input though.