Tithing - The Truth Please

[Terral]

Thank You But No More Hair Splitting For Me

Hi BeforeThereWas:

There was indeed a slight misunderstanding above concerning the men paying tithes to Melchizedek separately. You wrote:

Before >> Umm, I think that if you read what I said, I stated that the soldiers who went with Abraham didn't hand Melchizedek anything of what they took for their full portion. I didn't say Abraham didn't give Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear.

The soldier’s portion was already paid by Abraham from off the top. Even Levi and all the patriarchs are paying tithes to Melchizedek from the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:10). If Abraham divided the spoils first among the men, THEN each of them would have owed Melchizedek one tenth.

Before >> It's also understood that Abraham's personal property was still up in northern Canaan, so he wasn't able to give a tenth of his own property when he handed over a tenth of the spoils. (snip. I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions)

This is a point that you continue to misunderstand completely. When doing your own taxes today, do you pay according to what you own? No. You pay a percentage of your ‘income.’ What Abraham already possessed in Canaan was subject to the tithe in the years he came to possess them. These new spoils were taxed one time only and Melchizedek received his one tenth at the time Abraham met him. Melchizedek is typical of the “Holy Spirit†in the Holy of Holies served by the Levitical Priesthood who also received one tenth from the remaining tribes in the very same way. Please try to differentiate “possessions†taxed by NOBODY from “income†accumulated in that same year.

Before >> Agreed. The tenth came out before the soldiers got their full share. What I said was that the soldiers, after receiving their full share, gave nothing to Melchizedek.

Please forgive, but you are doing it again . . . If Melchizedek receives “one tenth part OF ALL†(Hebrews 7:2), then the soldiers NEVER received any ‘full share.’ Each received a 90 percent share from Abraham at the very start, because their father (Abraham) removed the ‘one tenth’ (tithe) off the top of every solider and gave that to Melchizedek. If Abraham captured 1000 goats, then 100 went to Melchizedek and his priesthood. If 1000 pounds of gold were taken as spoil, then the priesthood received 100 pounds off the top. Abraham took his share and the remainder was divided among those he gave special dispensation.

Before >> Abraham handed over a tenth of property he knew was never his in the first place, and he gave a tenth based upon no prerequisite, command or requirement. He did so freely. This is one aspect of that event that flies in the face of the pro-required-tithing camp.

We disagree here. Mosaic Law (Romans 9:1-4) was dispensed to Israel of the flesh in a precise manner described throughout the Old Testament Text. We simply do not have that kind of documentation binding Abraham to pay tithes to Melchizedek. The fact that Abraham did so is all the evidence we need that such a ‘relationship’ existed between the ‘king of righteousness’ (Abraham) AND the ‘king of peace’ (Melchizedek) named in Hebrews 7:2. These are types of the Jewish Priesthood possessing a lesser glory ‘paying’ tithes to the greater (Melchizedek) AND also receiving tithes (as Levites) from the servant race (Israel ONLY). This is an advanced teaching under “the Mystery†(Ephesians 3:3) umbrella, but one that becomes very important.

Who existed first – the Gentiles (spirit) or the Jews (water)? The Jews represent the water witness taken from the side of one Gentile (Abraham = father = spirit), just like Eve (water) was taken from the side of Adam (spirit). Israel is the ‘helpmeet’ of the Gentiles who later come to the Lord (Acts 15:16-18) through the same Levitical Priesthood. Scripture is showing you the ‘relationship’ existing between Abraham (spirit) and Melchizedek (spirit) with this ‘tithe’ characteristic seeing ‘income’ passing from the "father" (including all his seed "IN" him) to the one true “forever†priesthood. Scripture is going to show you that Christ Himself bypassed the Levitical priesthood to become a ‘priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.†Hebrews 5:6. God is showing you that the office of the Levites in serving the Temple is TEMPORAL and that their duties will indeed PASS AWAY, but the office of Melchizedek will endure FOREVER. The difference is that Levites will indeed butcher animals throughout the 1000 Years “Day of the Lord†in the restored “Temple†(Ezekiel 40 +) in the restored Kingdom (Ezekiel 47 + Ezekiel 48). There will be NO such offerings in the ‘Sanctuary’ of the New Earth of Ezekiel 37:24-28, because this ‘evil age’ (Galatians 1:4) will by then BE OVER. Christ said that the Law remains for Israel, but for how long? He said “until Heaven and Earth Pass Away.†Matthew 5:18. That is what Hebrews is talking about in saying:

“For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.†Hebrews 7:12-16.

Every ordinance of Mosaic Law concerning the Tabernacle and Temple reveals something about the ‘true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.’ Hebrews 8:2. All the washings (water), and sacrifices (blood) and anointings (spirit) of the Temple point to something in heaven above. However, Christ becoming our High Priest bypasses ALL OF THOSE THINGS, as He ascended “far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things†(Ephesians 4:10) on the basis of obtaining an ‘indestructible life’ (Hebrews 7:16).

Our “One God†stands within His Three witnesses (Revelation 1:8) in His Infinite Realm and our “one Mediator†(Christ Jesus = 1 Timothy 2:5) stands in the “Realm of the Word†between God (spirit) and men (water). Jesus Christ did not merely ascend into ‘Heaven’ (blood) or even the ‘Heavens’ (spirit) of “This Creation†(under blue “Men†in Figure 1), but God removed Him from this Creation entirely and seated Him “IN†Christ Jesus within the Realm of the Word and that ‘perfect tabernacle’ built by the hand of God. Look intently upon the Father, Son and Holy Spirit under the red arrow of “Christ Jesus†and realize this was “The Word†of John 1:2 through whom this Creation (John 1:3 = heavens, heaven and earth) were called into being. Scripture says,

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.†Hebrews 9:11-12.

Look again at the diagram above and realize that the “greater and more perfect tabernacle†is “Christ Jesus†Himself (F,S,HS) in the “Realm of the Word†that existed before this Creation (Earth = Figure 1) was called into existence. From the “Realm of the Word†Christ can incarnate into you (Christ in you = Colossians 1:27) through your obedience to Paul’s Gospel AND God Himself is already “IN†Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). THAT is how Christ is now filling ‘all things’ through our participation in the Gospel today, which is impossible if He ascended to any location “IN†this Adamic (Earth) Creation. When my posts end with the phrase “IN Christ Jesus,†then I am identifying the precise location of where I was called by obedience to the Gospel (“transferred†in Figure 2). Since you and I have been baptized “INTO†Christ (Galatians 3:27) and into the “one Body†(1 Corinthians 12:13), then we were “IN†Christ when God raised Him and seated Him above ALL THE HEAVENS (Ephesians 2:6-7). Look back up there to the final words of Hebrews 9:12 and realize also that Christ obtained 'eternal redemption ' FOR CHRIST. That same redemption we gain access today is also “IN†Christ Jesus†(Romans 3:24), where we gained that and our forgiveness through His shed blood (Ephesians 1:7). If you are following along, then the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 24:14 = water) gives the kingdom disciple membership in the Kingdom OF HEAVEN of ‘This Creation,’ between the ‘heavens’ (spirit) and the ‘earth’ (water). However, obedience to Paul’s Gospel gives you citizenship “IN†Christ Jesus not even part of this Creation “IN†God’s Word Himself. Now, from here you can perhaps backtrack all the way back to Abraham and see his ‘relationship’ with Melchizedek and see the Hand Of God setting the stage for what is to come for us at Calvary. We agree that the “pro-required-tithing camp†is dead wrong, as God is trying to show us ‘much’ greater things in the ‘relationships’ of those giving and receiving ‘tithes’ throughout Scripture.

Terral Original >> Tithes do not work that way, according to Mosaic Law or Jewish tradition. Rather than extract a 10th of what you own, the priest can take the best of your sacrifices and a tenth of your ‘income.’

Before >> Income? How do you figure that, if you don't mind my asking...basing strictly from the Law. The Law required not one wage-earner to pay a tithe of his income. After all, they did have currency, and lots of it, and there were also many wage-earners.

The Law required the non-Levite Jew to pay tithes to the Levitical Priesthood from his ‘income.’ The Lord God delivered wealth into the hands of Abraham and Melchizedek received his one tenth off the very top. This is far too simple to debate . . . The men received their share from the 90 percent that remained, which means their tithe was already paid by their king of righteousness.

Terral Original >> Abraham’s spoils from war fall under the ‘income’ category.

Before >> Indeed? This only holds true if one can prove that Abraham ever intended to keep what he knew was never his to begin with. He brought it all back to it's original owners, so his actions alone seem to indicate that he was above the usual mindset of men like the heathen Vikings, who always considered the spoils to be theirs.

Since Hebrews says that “Abraham apportioned a tenth part of ALL,†(Hebrews 7:2), then obviously he and God’s Word considered the entire spoil to belong to Abraham.

Before >> Additionally, why would Abraham ever think to keep what was needed by those from whom it was taken?

Please go and read the account again. Abram’s relative was taken captive (Genesis 14:14) and he found and defeated them in the following verse (Genesis 14:15). Then this happens:

“He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.†Genesis 14:16.

The men Abram attacked were all dead or they fled for their lives. Abram then “brought back ALL the goods†AND “the women and the people.†That means the soldiers were given wives and their children also to be come their possessions. The sons of Israel do the same thing in Genesis 34:25-29 and also take the ‘little ones their wives, even all that was in the houses.’ Genesis 34:29. Making war over next to nothing (defiling their sister = Genesis 34:27) was a means of acquiring income back in the Old Testament days. Note that Levi is leading the charge with Simeon (Genesis 34:25), which means he owed a tithe to nobody.

Before >> Would YOU keep property you retrieved from a band of thieves when you knew who it belonged to in the first place?

What I would do is meaningless to this discussion. The Old Testament includes the killing and appropriation of wealth by the sword, which includes even new wives and children. Those kinds of rewards are what encouraged men to go into battle in the first place and led to such sayings as, “To the victor goes the spoils.†I am sorry that you yet to define ‘spoil’s of war’ in the Old Testament as ‘income.’

Before >> Can you tell me that the Christian thing to do is to keep it to yourself? Would you consider what you retrieved to be your "income"? Somehow, what you have said here just doesn't seem to set right with the Christian ethic to which we are all called to aspire.

Heh . . . There would be no such thing on this planet as a “Christian,†until after Calvary. We cannot force our morality upon those living in the Old Testament. David brought foreskins to the king in order to become his “son-in-law†(1 Samuel 18:27), but do you consider that “Christian†behavior? What did the Lord command Saul to do to Amalek?

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

In cases like this even the women, children, infants, oxen, sheep, camels and donkeys were to be killed, which cut into the ‘spoils’ for the soldiers. Our Christian morality today has NOTHING to do with how the Lord dealt with His enemies while protecting the sons of righteousness of that day. Let’s read Scripture for what God ‘does’ say apart from our preconceived notions about forcing our Christian morality wherever we wish.

Before >> Well, that certainly would have merit if we didn't have the rest of the story, which means that Abraham's actions speak otherwise. I am curious: Why would you think that a man of the stature of Abraham would do what you would never think to do, which is to keep stolen property for yourself? I'm not talking about our social laws here in the USA, I'm talking strictly along the lines of moral absolutes.

Abram did not ‘steal’ anything, but he took the possessions of God’s enemies and divided that among the principals of his kingdom.

Before >> Now, I agree that while it was under Abraham's control, it was his to do with as he pleased...within reason. And yet, if he ever considered it to be his personal property, then why did he bring it back, and why did the king of Sodom tell him to take the spoils, excepting the captives, and why did Abraham ask that the soldiers be allowed to take their portion for going to war?

Why ask why? Your attempt to insert your Christian morality into the Old Testament stories is throwing your for a loop. : 0 ). Just read the accounts for what they say and perhaps God will lead you into the higher understanding.

Before >> Hebrews 7 says nothing about Abraham continuing to tithe to Melchizedek, if I understand you correctly. (snip; assumptions are being made on both sides for lack of Bible evidence)

Hebrews is showing you the ‘relationship’ that existed between these two kings in order to then show you something greater. You are hung up on the ‘tithing’ part without recognizing the ‘greater tabernacle’ and the higher teachings that connect Melchizedek to the Holy Spirit and Christ to that Higher Priesthood. The ‘tithe’ lingo is there to show you the direction of the income going from the king of righteousness to the king of peace. There is no reason to assume that Abraham neglected Melchizedek over any increase in his income, but that is a minor consideration from the overall teaching.

Before >> Let's kick it up a notch, shall we? If the spoils were indeed considered to be Abraham's property by any one of the men standing there, watching this event unravel before their eyes, then, pray tell, why did the king of Sodom give Abraham permission to keep the spoils if either of those two men ever considered the spoils to be the property of Abraham for having gone to war? Abraham's going to war had only to do with Lot having been taken captive. No other reason is given. In other words, Abraham was not out on a conquest for spoils. He got what he went after, and he was in the process of returning the stolen property, just like any other true believer would do, knowing full well that this is the truly moral thing to do. Abraham was already wealthy. He didn't need that stuff.

You missed the point entirely. Who is going to protect the women and children and possessions of the men Abram just cut down with the sword? What sense does it make to leave them high and dry? How is Abram going to rally his men for the next battle, if he allows the spoils to fall to others? Scripture shows Abram going to battle, killing his enemies and taking their possessions home as spoils. Just read the account for what it says, and ask God ‘why’ when you get the opportunity . . .

Terral Original >> Well, Scripture does indeed teach that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.

Before >> You rendered the term "tithe" in the plural (tithes). Why is that? Not all of our English translations render it in the plural, and the Greek makes no such stipulation according to the Greek rules of grammar.

Please . . . You are splitting hairs here over nothing. The NASB for Hebrews 7:8-9 says ‘tithes.’ Whether rendered singular or plural is irrelevant to anything.

Terral Original >> Perhaps you are forgetting that the Lord God instituted Mosaic Law 400 years later the Twelve Tribes and that no written law was given to Abraham.

Before >> Really? My Bible says otherwise. What does yours say in Gen. 26:5?

Please . . . Man-0-Man. Do you know the difference between “MOSAIC LAW†given to Israel and commands given to Abraham 400 years earlier? My statement is based upon what God says through Paul concerning Abraham and the Promise:

“Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.†Galatians 3:16-17.

The sixth day races were given commands by God (Genesis 1:26-28) and Adam in the Garden and Noah and Abraham, but MOSAIC LAW came through Moses as the ‘steward’ over Israel of the flesh ONLY. Romans 9:1-5.

This side has made his points and no longer has the desire to continue splitting hairs on this topic. The ‘body of Christ’ today is under NO LAW at all to pay tithes (plural) to anybody. We give to the church, according to the grace of God and our own desire to supporting and edifying the ‘body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:11-13 (evangelists, pastors, teachers).

Thank you very much for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Re: Thank You But No More Hair Splitting For Me

Hi BeforeThereWas:

The soldier’s portion was already paid by Abraham from off the top. Even Levi and all the patriarchs are paying tithes to Melchizedek from the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:10). If Abraham divided the spoils first among the men, THEN each of them would have owed Melchizedek one tenth.

Interesting. Well, let's see what the text has to say:

Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten [past tense], and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Now, I added the emphatic "past tense" to show that the verse does indeed give us a good clue as to its accuracy with its use of tense. Abraham, then, makes it clear that his men have already eaten some of the food from the spoils, and he THEN requests "let them take their portion." Not a question, but a request, or perhaps even a demand for what's only right and proper courtesy for their having gone to war in order to retrieve the stolen property. Now, you are left with having to merely assume that the soldiers had already taken their portion, and then fished out a tenth to be handed over to Melchizedek, of which the text gives no indication whatsoever. One must assume into the text what simply is not there to say that the soldiers already had their portion. Now, if this seems inconsistent to you, then I would be interested in a quote and some emphasis upon what portion of the text that gives you reason to believe otherwise besides mere statements to the contrary with no substantial evidence for support. I tend to stick to clear, undeniable evidence that can be observed rather than referred to in a distant manner.

However, going along with your assumption, we can observe another possibility: If there is a pile of goods sitting there, minus what the soldiers had allegedly already taken for themselves, coupled together with an admission from Abraham (Abram at that time) that they had already gotten theirs, then how is it a violation of the text to say that Melchizedek was given a tenth of all that was still within the collective whole that was left over? After all, it is reaxonable to say that those kings who took the proerty more than likely had also already eaten from the spoils as well. Does that then render the declaration false that Melchizedek got a tenth of all? Abraham must have been a liar if we follow your assumption to its logical conclusion. After all, Abraham admitted that the soldiers had already eaten a portion of the food within the spoils, and it is reasonable to assume that that the kings also had eaten some, so just how far are you willing to go in order to force unreasonable meaning into the text that simply is beyond the scope of Abraham's meaning? Are you going to assume that more than a tenth was given to Melchizedek in order to make up for what was consumed by the soldiers and the enemy? How did Abraham know as to how much was eaten even by his own men? Did he have a cash register and keep meticulous track of what was eaten by his men? How did he know what was consumed by the enemy? There are many questions for which no man can answer, so one is therefore left with having to inject copious amonts of assumption that rests upon no legitimate foundation of evidence, and actually forces a large degree of unreasonable expectation and meaning upon the text that would require Divine input, for which we are given no supporting evidence.

So, we are therefore left with the logical conclusion that the soldiers did indeed take a full portion of what was left after Melchizedek had his tenth of what was left after the soldiers and likely the kings had already eaten some of the food portion. This does not make Abraham a liar with our knowing full well that some of the food was already gone. We are not told that Abraham gave more than a tenth of what was left in order to make up for what had already been consumed.

Figuratively, Abraham's offspring did indeed vicariously pay a tithe through the action of Abraham with the spoils. Again, a tenth of the spoils is nowhere else in scripture mimicked. As a matter of fact, the Lord commanded Moses otherwise in Numbers 31. Only 1/50th and 1/500th of the spoils of that war were handed over to the priests and Levites, which is FAR less than 1/10th.

This is a point that you continue to misunderstand completely. When doing your own taxes today, do you pay according to what you own? No. You pay a percentage of your ‘income.’ What Abraham already possessed in Canaan was subject to the tithe in the years he came to possess them.

Indeed? Based upon what evidence? To whom did he give this alleged tithe, and how? You are again assuming that Abraham was a common marauder who considered someone else's property to be his own that he retrieved from raiders. Unlike yourself, I tend to think that Abraham was a much better man with higher principles. The text lends good support to the fact that Abraham was indeed bringing back the property to its rightful owner, for we read in Gen 14:16, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people." Those are not the actions of a man who harbored even the slightest hint that he considered the spoils to be his "payment" for going to war. His request that his soldiers be allowed to take a portion for themselves in verse 24 simply bankrupts your many assumptions. Abraham was deffinitely wealthy, and he was the calibre of a man unlike the wealthy of today, who are mostly never satisfied with what they have, therefore always seeking out more than they can possibly enjoy for themselves. Sorry, but based upon the clear language of the text, I must reject your belittling of a man you have never met. I take great exception to anyone relegating Abraham to the level of a common marauder and vagabond like the Vikings. You may not see your viewpoint having such an impact upon his character, but it does indeed lead to that conclusion, no matter how much you may protest about my alleged misunderstanding of what you are saying. The obvious conclusions to which your reasoning leads is there for anyone to observe and understand. Charts, graphs, and long windage will never serve as suitable replacements for legitimate and substantial evidence from the text and its clear language.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Re: Thank You But No More Hair Splitting For Me

Hi BeforeThereWas:

The soldier’s portion was already paid by Abraham from off the top. Even Levi and all the patriarchs are paying tithes to Melchizedek from the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:10). If Abraham divided the spoils first among the men, THEN each of them would have owed Melchizedek one tenth.

Interesting. Well, let's see what the text has to say:

Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten [past tense], and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Now, I added the emphatic "past tense" to show that the verse does indeed give us a good clue as to its accuracy with its use of tense. Abraham, then, makes it clear that his men have already eaten some of the food from the spoils, and he THEN requests "let them take their portion." Not a question, but a request, or perhaps even a demand for what's only right and proper courtesy for their having gone to war in order to retrieve the stolen property. Now, you are left with having to merely assume that the soldiers had already taken their portion, and then fished out a tenth to be handed over to Melchizedek, of which the text gives no indication whatsoever. One must assume into the text what simply is not there to say that the soldiers already had their portion. Now, if this seems inconsistent to you, then I would be interested in a quote and some emphasis upon what portion of the text that gives you reason to believe otherwise besides mere statements to the contrary with no substantial evidence for support. I tend to stick to clear, undeniable evidence that can be observed rather than referred to in a distant manner.

However, going along with your assumption, we can observe another possibility: If there is a pile of goods sitting there, minus what the soldiers had allegedly already taken for themselves, coupled together with an admission from Abraham (Abram at that time) that they had already eaten some of the food, then how is it a violation of the text to say that Melchizedek was given a tenth of all that was still within the collective whole that was left over? After all, it is reasonable to say that those kings who took the property more than likely had also already eaten from the spoils as well. Does that then render the declaration false that Melchizedek got a tenth of all? Abraham must have been a liar if we follow your assumption to its logical conclusion. After all, Abraham admitted that the soldiers had already eaten a portion of the food within the spoils, and it is reasonable to assume that that the kings also had eaten some, so just how far are you willing to go in order to force unreasonable meaning into the text that simply is beyond the scope of Abraham's meaning? Are you going to assume that more than a tenth, of what was left over, was given to Melchizedek in order to make up for what was consumed by the soldiers and the enemy? How did Abraham know as to how much was eaten even by his own men? Did he have a cash register and keep meticulous track of what was eaten by his men? How did he know what was consumed by the enemy? There are many questions for which no man can answer, so one is therefore left with having to inject copious amounts of assumption that rests upon no legitimate foundation of evidence, and actually forces a large degree of unreasonable expectation and meaning upon the text that would require Divine substantiation, for which we are given no supporting evidence.

So, we are therefore left with the logical conclusion that the soldiers did indeed take a full portion of what was left after Melchizedek had his tenth of what was left, and after the soldiers, and likely the kings, had already eaten some of the food portion. This does not make Abraham a liar with our knowing full well that some of the food was already gone. We are not told that Abraham gave more than a tenth of what was left in order to make up for what had already been consumed. So, where is your textual proof, without forcing meaning into the text that clearly is not there? A "tenth of all" does not necessarily mean that the tenth therefore had to include a tenth of what was not sitting right there before their eyes. Every conclusion rests upon premises, and some of the premises upon which you base your conclusions are faulty and beyond the scope of textual evidence, therefore rendering your concluions faulty. The text is reliable and true, and your premises are faulty that have therefore led you to faulty conclusions.

Figuratively, Abraham's offspring did indeed vicariously pay a tithe through the action of Abraham with the spoils. Again, a tenth of the spoils is nowhere else in scripture mimicked. As a matter of fact, the Lord commanded Moses otherwise in Numbers 31. Only 1/50th and 1/500th of the spoils of that war were handed over to the priests and Levites, which is FAR less than 1/10th.

This is a point that you continue to misunderstand completely. When doing your own taxes today, do you pay according to what you own? No. You pay a percentage of your ‘income.’ What Abraham already possessed in Canaan was subject to the tithe in the years he came to possess them.

Indeed? Based upon what evidence? To whom did he give this alleged tithe, and how? You are again assuming that Abraham was a common marauder who considered someone else's property to be his own that he retrieved from raiders. Unlike yourself, I tend to think that Abraham was a much better man with higher principles. The text lends good support to the fact that Abraham was indeed bringing back the property to its rightful owner, for we read in Gen 14:16, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people." Those are not the actions of a man who harbored even the slightest hint that he considered the spoils to be his "payment" for going to war. His request that his soldiers be allowed to take a portion for themselves in verse 24 simply bankrupts your many assumptions. Abraham was deffinitely wealthy, and he was the calibre of a man unlike the wealthy of today, who are mostly never satisfied with what they have, therefore always seeking out more than they can possibly enjoy for themselves. Sorry, but based upon the clear language of the text, I must reject your belittling of a man you have never met. I take great exception to anyone relegating Abraham to the level of a common marauder and vagabond like the Vikings. You may not see your viewpoint having such an impact upon his character, but it does indeed lead to that conclusion, no matter how much you may protest about my alleged misunderstanding of what you are saying. The obvious conclusions to which your reasoning leads is there for anyone to observe and understand. Charts, graphs, and long windage will never serve as suitable replacements for legitimate and substantial evidence from the text and its clear language.

BTW

 

[Henry]

Interesting that this tithe matter is still going strong.

The fact is that the New Covenant does not require us to pay a tithe, the church building is unbiblical, pastors are not found in the NT and to pay them is just sad sad sad.

It would be better that we never sat in a pew, so much to unlearn.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Interesting that this tithe matter is still going strong.

It's not easy getting through all the canned answers to this issue. So many have had the canned answers drilled into them so deeply for so long that they tend to become deaf to what the scriptures actually teach in the simplicity of biblical language. Most prefer not to think that their "pastor" might actually be wrong about something.

The fact is that the New Covenant does not require us to pay a tithe,

Very true.

the church building is unbiblical,

...as opposed to anti-biblical, which in some cases they are indeed anti-biblical.

pastors are not found in the NT

At least, not those men who are today called "pastor".

and to pay them is just sad sad sad.

Well, they have just as much right to being paid by the church business they run as any secular business. After all, organized religion falls under the non-profit designation of the IRS code. They are providing a religious service to those who desire such things, so to say that they are not entitled to something from the business they run is to say that no business owner or leader is worthy of making a living from the business they run. That's somewhat extreme, don't you think?

Suffice it to say that organized religion is not representative of the Church, either in the local or corporate sense.

It would be better that we never sat in a pew, so much to unlearn.

There is indeed something to your criticism of the pew. It is a device upon which its warmers are locked into a life of non-functionality and perpetual sheepdom in the religious gathering of professing believers.

BTW

 

[New_Wineskin]

I know. I know. ANOTHER thread about tithing. Well, I've run across a new twist to this pesky little subject for which I can't seem to get any straight answers. This can be an interesting discussion from both sides of this issue. Please remain civil, because this subject isn't worth getting all worked up.

First of all, it needs to be understood that I have no problem with a group of people supporting a building, its professional staffing and operating costs secondarily with their giving. There's no injunction in God's word against such an endeavor.

For those of you who believe in tithing, it's a biblical fact that the tithe was the first and primary portion of the farmer's and rancher's giving. All the offerings were secondary to the tithe since the tithe was an established portion of the increase.

Hey , BTW !!

This , of course , is a tricky subject . First of all , people have different definitions of what they consider a "tithe" . It is difficult for communication when this happens and when people are attempting to persuade someone else .

Before answering your questions with regards to a tithe , I would like to say what I have found in my research .

A) While the Scriptures mention a "tithe" in a few different ways . only one particular type of tithe was mentioned as a command . That command is spelled out clearly . Who was to tithe and to whom and with what . I know of none who follow this command .

B) My second comment is that , whatever way one goes about defining the tithe , I am exempt .
1) If one goes by it still being in effect , I can say that I am a priest as all believers are a part of the priesthood and
a) I would only be commanded to tithe only from the tithes given to me by others . None give me tithes and so there is none to give .
b) I could claim what was mentioned in Hebrews that Abraham payed my tithe in the same manner as it could be said that Abraham payed the tithe of the Levites .

2) I could say that I do not farm or raise herds and those that do so are the only ones commanded to tithe .
3) I am a Gentile . The command in question does not discuss someone such as myself .
4) The Storehouse is no longer standing . There is no opportunity to fulfill the command .

C) If that part of the Law is still in effect , I would also need to put to death those that disobey the Sabbath . I would start with those that demand a tithe and do not obey the Sabbath commands as defined by the Scriptures .

Ok , that is from the top of my head . Clearly , if one is to say that I am to tithe as part of the Scriptures , none of it fits my station .

QUESTIONS:

1) Where does God's word redefine the tithe as being, for example, money rather than a tenth of the crops and herds?

I assume you mean the Scriptures when you say "God's word" . That term is used for so many things and even Jesus . Anyway , while "tithe" simply means "tenth" , it could possibly mean anything . But , with regards to fuylfilling the only command for tithing , only plants and animals were to be given .

2) Where does God's word make a change from the Levites, who were the only one's authorized to collect the tithe, to ushers within organized religion?

The only tithe that is commanded was for the physical descendants of the Israelites who agreed to the Mosaic Coveant . No other tithe was commanded . However , if one was tithing their money without saying that the Scriptures commanded it , there is nothing in the Scriptures against it .

3) Where does God's word allow for the tithe (or any of the primary portion of believer's giving) to be used for the upkeep and support of organized religion, its buildings and real estate, and operating costs rather than the Old and New Testament examples and commands of 100% of the tithe (or the primary portion of people's giving) being used to meet legitimate needs of people?

The Scriptures allow for a tithe ( not a command ) to go to such things by them not forbidding it . However , to tell people to do anything because the Scriptures say so is against the Scriptures as it is attempting to obtain righteousness by works and the Law instead of the Spirit .

4) Where does God's word redefine wages exchanged for labor as a form of increase, such as what is seen from the fields and herds?

Well , that doesn't even make sense . A wage is not an increase . If someone invested money and had a profit , that would be an increase . Or , a bonus that was not a part of the deal between the party giving the wage and the wage earner - that would also be an increase . But , a wage itself is not an increase but an even exchange .

5) Where does God's word declare the buildings of organized religion today to be the replacement of the temple and its storehouse?

Nowhere !! In fact ... He didn't even want a temple in the first place because He wanted people to know that He was everywhere . I am surprised at how many christians speak of their buildings as the Lord's House . It creeps me out .

6) Where does God's word declare that the leadership within organized religion automatically qualifies as being leaders of biblical calibre, therefore qualified to receive of believer's giving for their own sustenance?

The so-called "pastors" today are merely club poo-pahs as they are not heads of churches as defined in the Scriptures but as organizations and clubs with their own sets of bylaws . There is certainly nothing in the Scriptures for giving them a retirement fund as they are to be a part of the group forever and be given food when needed .

I would appreciate intelligent discussion on all this rather than knee-jerk reactionism and ad hominem (personal attacks) such as accusing those who don't tithe of being greedy. Such a rash, blind judgment serves only to distance the accuser from reality.

Thanks

Good questions .

 

[Solo]

1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. 3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. 8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. 9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. 11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: 22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck. 23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet. 25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. 26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. 28 Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee. 29 Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. 30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. 31 Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways. 32 For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous. 33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just. 34 Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. 35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools. Proverbs 3

 

[Simple Mind]

Hi,

It's a blessing to be discussing these things ... first time on the forum.

While I don't agree with everything being said, it raises some interesting and important points. After reading the whole thread (probably not understanding all of it and missing some stuff), I have two questions I want to clarify.

BTW and others with similar views, is it fair to say that you believe while "tithing" is not commanded for today's believers, we should still give as much to the Lord as we can?

If so, I'd like to hear more about your views on what we should be giving for, to whom, and how do you ensure the proper use of the offering.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[BeforeThereWas]

A) While the Scriptures mention a "tithe" in a few different ways . only one particular type of tithe was mentioned as a command . That command is spelled out clearly . Who was to tithe and to whom and with what . I know of none who follow this command .

B) My second comment is that , whatever way one goes about defining the tithe , I am exempt .
1) If one goes by it still being in effect , I can say that I am a priest as all believers are a part of the priesthood and
a) I would only be commanded to tithe only from the tithes given to me by others . None give me tithes and so there is none to give .
b) I could claim what was mentioned in Hebrews that Abraham payed my tithe in the same manner as it could be said that Abraham payed the tithe of the Levites .

2) I could say that I do not farm or raise herds and those that do so are the only ones commanded to tithe .
3) I am a Gentile . The command in question does not discuss someone such as myself .
4) The Storehouse is no longer standing . There is no opportunity to fulfill the command .

C) If that part of the Law is still in effect , I would also need to put to death those that disobey the Sabbath . I would start with those that demand a tithe and do not obey the Sabbath commands as defined by the Scriptures .

Say, those were some excellent points. I'll have to remember those. :D

Thanks

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. 3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. 8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. 9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. 11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: 22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck. 23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet. 25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. 26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. 28 Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee. 29 Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. 30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. 31 Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways. 32 For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous. 33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just. 34 Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. 35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools. Proverbs 3

Ok, Solo. What's your take on those verses? Are you saying that you think that the command to tithe is still intact today?

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Hi,

It's a blessing to be discussing these things ... first time on the forum.

While I don't agree with everything being said, it raises some interesting and important points. After reading the whole thread (probably not understanding all of it and missing some stuff), I have two questions I want to clarify.

BTW and others with similar views, is it fair to say that you believe while "tithing" is not commanded for today's believers, we should still give as much to the Lord as we can?

If so, I'd like to hear more about your views on what we should be giving for, to whom, and how do you ensure the proper use of the offering.

Blessings,
Lou

Any time man is involved, there is always the potential for abuse. Therefore, my thrust is not so much in doing away with all the possibilities for abuse since that would be like trying to cast sin out of this world.

Giving, as exemplified in the NT, primarily went for the meeting of needs, not the acquisition of real estate and errection of buildings and the professional staff therein. Therefore the answer to your question:

If we are meeting needs of fellow beleivers and those of our respective communities, then we are indeed giving to the Lord. When the need is great, then the greater our giving what we can. Justg because the institution down the street built a bigger and fancier building doesn't mean that I or anyone else owe them anything.

For clarification, what is your understanding of what it means to "give to the Lord"?

BTW

 

[Solo]

1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. 3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. 8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. 9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. 11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. 16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

21 My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: 22 So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck. 23 Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid: yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet. 25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. 26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. 28 Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee. 29 Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. 30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. 31 Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways. 32 For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous. 33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just. 34 Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. 35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools. Proverbs 3

Ok, Solo. What's your take on those verses? Are you saying that you think that the command to tithe is still intact today?

BTW

If a believer doesn't want to follow the wisdom revealed in the proverbs, that is their choice.

9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. Proverbs 3:9-10


6 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. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: 9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. 2 Corinthians 9:6-9

 

[Simple Mind]

Hi,

It's a blessing to be discussing these things ... first time on the forum.

While I don't agree with everything being said, it raises some interesting and important points. After reading the whole thread (probably not understanding all of it and missing some stuff), I have two questions I want to clarify.

BTW and others with similar views, is it fair to say that you believe while "tithing" is not commanded for today's believers, we should still give as much to the Lord as we can?

If so, I'd like to hear more about your views on what we should be giving for, to whom, and how do you ensure the proper use of the offering.

Blessings,
Lou

Any time man is involved, there is always the potential for abuse. Therefore, my thrust is not so much in doing away with all the possibilities for abuse since that would be like trying to cast sin out of this world.

Giving, as exemplified in the NT, primarily went for the meeting of needs, not the acquisition of real estate and errection of buildings and the professional staff therein. Therefore the answer to your question:

If we are meeting needs of fellow beleivers and those of our respective communities, then we are indeed giving to the Lord. When the need is great, then the greater our giving what we can. Justg because the institution down the street built a bigger and fancier building doesn't mean that I or anyone else owe them anything.

For clarification, what is your understanding of what it means to "give to the Lord"?

BTW

My understanding of "to give to the Lord" is to give resources (not limited to money) that is used towards doing God's work, according to His will.

I understand the potential for abuse and totally agree there is no earthly system that is totally abuse-proof.

But I'm still not clear what your answer to my two questions were (bear with me as my comprehension may be asleep). So it sounds like you are in favor of giving as much as we can to the Lord, though you never actually said so. And it sounds like you think there are many things we should give for which qualify as the Lord's work, but anything to do with real estate, buildings, and professional staff is bad. Anything else that should be excluded?

Is that what you are saying? I'm just trying to understand.

Also, besides "don't give for real estate, buildings, and professional staff", what other guidelines for what makes proper giving and improper giving do you have? What qualifies as "meeting of needs" that you mention?

Thanks for your help ...

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[BeforeThereWas]

If a believer doesn't want to follow the wisdom revealed in the proverbs, that is their choice.

9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. Proverbs 3:9-10

Thanks for your response.

May I ask, how does one give to the Lord today? Are you saying that giving to organized religion is giving to the Lord? Are we commanded to give to organized religion by the word of the Lord?

Jesus commanded the healed leper to go and offer up burnt offerings in Matt. 8:4. Many will look at Jesus' remarks concerning the tithe, and assume that it is therefore binding upon us today. Well, here's a prime example of the Lord giving direct command for burnt offerings. We today don't follow that command, just as we aren't bound by the Law to tithe.

Giving is a much higher expression, conformed to what Paul said about giving whatsoever we purpose in our hearts.

All that we have belongs to Him.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

My understanding of "to give to the Lord" is to give resources (not limited to money) that is used towards doing God's work, according to His will.

I agree.

But I'm still not clear what your answer to my two questions were (bear with me as my comprehension may be asleep). So it sounds like you are in favor of giving as much as we can to the Lord, though you never actually said so.

Yes, I'm in favor of giving what we can to the Lord.

And it sounds like you think there are many things we should give for which qualify as the Lord's work, but anything to do with real estate, buildings, and professional staff is bad. Anything else that should be excluded?

No. I stated that giving to support orgainzed religion secondarily to our primary obligation of meeting needs is certainly in keeping with the Lord's word. Thanks for asking.

Also, besides "don't give for real estate, buildings, and professional staff", what other guidelines for what makes proper giving and improper giving do you have? What qualifies as "meeting of needs" that you mention?

I never said that it's wrong to support real estate, buildings, and their associated expenditures. If you re-read my posts more carefully, you will notice that I was careful in identifying the distinctive primary portion of believer's giving.

The OT tithe, almost 99% of it, went for the meeting of needs. The NT collections and offerings all went for the meeting of needs.

BTW

 

[Solo]

If a believer doesn't want to follow the wisdom revealed in the proverbs, that is their choice.

9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. Proverbs 3:9-10

Thanks for your response.

May I ask, how does one give to the Lord today? Are you saying that giving to organized religion is giving to the Lord? Are we commanded to give to organized religion by the word of the Lord?

Jesus commanded the healed leper to go and offer up burnt offerings in Matt. 8:4. Many will look at Jesus' remarks concerning the tithe, and assume that it is therefore binding upon us today. Well, here's a prime example of the Lord giving direct command for burnt offerings. We today don't follow that command, just as we aren't bound by the Law to tithe.

Giving is a much higher expression, conformed to what Paul said about giving whatsoever we purpose in our hearts.

All that we have belongs to Him.

BTW

Giving the first fruits of one's increase as revealed by the wise Solomon, is God's way to tear down the walls of selfishness, and build in its stead a giving, loving, mind of Christ individual with the freedom of contentment in this temporary world to operate within the will of God.

Another gift of God to believers is the gathering together of the believers in what some call "organized religion". I call the gathering of the saints together in a home, or a corporate building, or a ediface called a "Church", Church. It is a place where God gives his will to the elders and allows the parts of the body of Christ to work throughout the communities as God leads. Giving to the body of Christ is spoken of in a positive manner in the Bible.

If one does not give a portion of God's belongings to others as he determines, then that one is short-changed in the blessings of God. The most important chapter relating to tithing, in my opinion, is that which I shared; Proverbs 3.

 

[Simple Mind]

And it sounds like you think there are many things we should give for which qualify as the Lord's work, but anything to do with real estate, buildings, and professional staff is bad. Anything else that should be excluded?

No. I stated that giving to support orgainzed religion secondarily to our primary obligation of meeting needs is certainly in keeping with the Lord's word. Thanks for asking.

Thanks for the clarification - now I understand much better. So the issue is not that organized religion shouldn't be supported, just that we should do something else with our offerings first - the use for "meeting needs".

Also, besides "don't give for real estate, buildings, and professional staff", what other guidelines for what makes proper giving and improper giving do you have? What qualifies as "meeting of needs" that you mention?

I never said that it's wrong to support real estate, buildings, and their associated expenditures. If you re-read my posts more carefully, you will notice that I was careful in identifying the distinctive primary portion of believer's giving.

The OT tithe, almost 99% of it, went for the meeting of needs. The NT collections and offerings all went for the meeting of needs.

OK, so it's fine to give for real estate, buildings, and associated expenditures. Your earlier statement about organized religion would say that even giving for professional staff was OK. We just have to give for "meeting of needs" first.

I'm still unclear on what qualifies for "meeting of needs". I don't know your idea of what that money should be used for and who it should be given to.


...

After some thinking, my take of it is this: if the primary purpose of the true church is spiritual rather than material, then the primary needs we need to meet are spiritual. Then any use of the money for spiritual goals qualifies. Not only for spiritual goals, they way the goals are pursued must also be according to God's will.

So, my conclusion is that the issue isn't really with organized religion, or real estate, or buildings, or professional staff. But the issue is with whether the resources are used for spiritual goals, pursued in a way pleasing to God. If so, then we shouldn't care whether it is done within or outside organized religion and we should give all we can. Interestingly, Acts 4:34-35 shows offerings being brought to the then "organized" church and distributed through the church for "meeting needs".

We earlier agreed that there is no perfect earthly system - there is little evidence that unorganized religion is any better at being accountable or at utilizing the resources appropriately, and vice versa. So I see a need to discern about a specific local church / organization / individual, and not to paint all organized or unorganized religion with the same brush.

Incidentally, I can certainly see cases where physical or spiritual needs are best met through owning property. Any needs that requires us to provide shelter or facilities (for the homeless, for the sick, etc.) requires the "true church" to either pay rent or own property. If it can be shown that facilities are needed for worship / fellowship / evangelism, then I guess that's legit "meeting needs" too. But that's sometimes arguable and sometimes defensible. In the cases where owning is more cost-effective, then giving for real estate becomes primary for "meeting needs" if we are to be good stewards.

Thank you ... I think I've clarified it in my mind now!

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Giving the first fruits of one's increase as revealed by the wise Solomon, is God's way to tear down the walls of selfishness, and build in its stead a giving, loving, mind of Christ individual with the freedom of contentment in this temporary world to operate within the will of God.

How do you define "increase"? Do you suppose that one's wages are a form of increase?

If the Lord considered one's wages to be a form of increase, then why were the people of Israel not required to tithe from their wages?

I think I can answer this, but I would first like to see your response.

Another gift of God to believers is the gathering together of the believers in what some call "organized religion". I call the gathering of the saints together in a home, or a corporate building, or a ediface called a "Church", Church. It is a place where God gives his will to the elders and allows the parts of the body of Christ to work throughout the communities as God leads. Giving to the body of Christ is spoken of in a positive manner in the Bible.

Well, yes and no.

First, the type of meeting we see going on within institutional, religious organizations is nowhere exemplified in scripture. Yes, it is important to gather together, but the so-called "service", being the main gathering, is the one place where the believers are kept from functioning as a living, breathing body. Instead, they are relegated to being a passive audience. How does one fellowship with the backs of other people's heads?

Secondly, giving to the body, as described in the NT, clealry was expressed within the context of meeting needs rather than allowing the lion's share to go for the upkeep of a facility. We're living out an expression where the cart is in front of the horse. We are allowing our facilities to be the greater need of our giving than the meeting of needs of our fellow believers. This is wrong.

If one does not give a portion of God's belongings to others as he determines, then that one is short-changed in the blessings of God. The most important chapter relating to tithing, in my opinion, is that which I shared; Proverbs 3.

Then, do you believe that it's right to once again place fellow believers under the bondage of the Law? The Law of tithing is exactly what Proverbs was referring to. If we are once again under that obligation, then who can be saved? The bondage of the Law is antothetical to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. He died that we may be redeemed and free, not placed once against under the bondage of an inferior covenant.

Proverbs also spoke of burnt sacrifices. Are we therefore bound by that as well? I'm not talking about sin offerings, but rather the many other sacrifices, such as thyank offerings, etc.

Quite frankly, I see nothing but problems when folks dredg up the Law of tithing from different sectors of the OT, such as Proverbs, as if it were still binding upon us today. Would you mind clarifiying your use of Proverbs, so that I can make sure that I'm not misunderstanding your application?

Thanks

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Thanks for the clarification - now I understand much better. So the issue is not that organized religion shouldn't be supported, just that we should do something else with our offerings first - the use for "meeting needs".

The scriptures exemplify the largest portion of people's giving used for the meeting of needs. Almost 99% of the entire tithe of the OT was used for meeting needs, not for the temple and its upkeep. NT giving, again, went for the meeting of needs, not for real estate and buildings. We certainly have the right to enjoy a common facility together for meetings, and paying the professional staff who provide the religious show for the people's enjoyment and spiritual enrichment, etc., but when the lion's share of our giving is used in support of such things, then we have our priorities completely backwards. We are, in effect, lavishing the majority portion of our giving right back upon ourselves, which is not "giving" much of anything.

OK, so it's fine to give for real estate, buildings, and associated expenditures. Your earlier statement about organized religion would say that even giving for professional staff was OK. We just have to give for "meeting of needs" first.

I'm still unclear on what qualifies for "meeting of needs". I don't know your idea of what that money should be used for and who it should be given to.

Allow me to quote what I had already written just this morning in another forum board:

*************
...a local group who call themselves "Vineyard" (yes, a member of the national organization), puts out a newsletter each week to its members. One particular week, a few years ago, there were two blocks in the newsletter, one above the other on one of the pages. The first block advertised that the organization had taken in $18,498 the previous week in "tithes and offerings." Immediately below that block was another, stating that a single mother of five needed a car because she could not afford one, and if anyone could help, then to please contact the office. That advertisement remained in that newsletter for four months, with that lady having to take city buses to go get groceries and to do other things, while lugging along all five little kids. Is this common? Far more common than it should be, and it's getting worse.
*************

Was there a need that should have been met by the organization? Yes, indeed. However, this organization demonstrated a viewpoint that is common among almost all of them. They see what is given to them is what is owed to them. They teach that their members should be handing over a full tenth, and more, to them, which represents the major portion of most people's giving. Many can't even afford 10%.

The OT tithe was never a tenth of anyone's wages. Why? Simply that wages are not a form of increase. Wages are an EXCHANGE of one's time, labor, and skills. Institutions, however, talk up the idea that our wages are a form of increase comparable to the farmer planting one seed of corn and getting back as much as 500 times what he sowed. That simply is not the case with wages. Investments, perhaps, but not wages. Falsehood upon falsehood is spewed from pulpits, and the masses of non-critical thinkers lap it all up as if it had the flavor of truth in its makeup.

After some thinking, my take of it is this: if the primary purpose of the true church is spiritual rather than material, then the primary needs we need to meet are spiritual. Then any use of the money for spiritual goals qualifies. Not only for spiritual goals, they way the goals are pursued must also be according to God's will.

Then why the strong, institutional emphasis upon money. If organized religion were genuinely interested in the spiritual well-being of the people, then why do they focus so much on money? Why is it that when you pull the money out from under organized religion, it collapses? Clearly, it is because organized religion os built upon the foundation of money, not spiritual things. The Church, on the other hand, is not at all built upon the foundation of money.

If physical needs were a priority we could so easily cast aside, then the Lord would never have instituted the tithe in the first place. The Gospel goes out because those who take it to the world have their needs met, and the needs of those who do the giving are also met. Apart from those needs being met, we would have far more dead bodies laying around than otherwise.

It's a given that the spiritual is indeed the greatest of all the needs. However, arguing for a lessening of meeting needs only adds fuel to the fires of greed that most churches have within their makeup. That survey made it clear that more than 95% of our church organizations are lapping up the majority of what's given to them. This speaks loud volumes of a serious problem.

So, my conclusion is that the issue isn't really with organized religion, or real estate, or buildings, or professional staff. But the issue is with whether the resources are used for spiritual goals, pursued in a way pleasing to God. If so, then we shouldn't care whether it is done within or outside organized religion and we should give all we can.

Ah, but the issue IS organized religion, buildings and real estate. Those are not the issue because I made them such. They are issues because organized religion made them as such. I'm simply challenging their claim upon the lion's share of what's given. They have no right to it when they absorb the largest portion for themselves. That is robbery of God, as is clearly declared in Malachi 3.

We earlier agreed that there is no perfect earthly system - there is little evidence that unorganized religion is any better at being accountable or at utilizing the resources appropriately, and vice versa.

This is apples and oranges. I never said that we should disband organized religion in leu of having "unorganized" religion. That's a straw man tactic more than it deals with what I actually said.

So I see a need to discern about a specific local church / organization / individual, and not to paint all organized or unorganized religion with the same brush.

Well, if you can cite a higher authority than the nationwide survey I used, then I'm all ears. :D That survey clearly showed that there is indeed merit in using broad brush strokes in fingering what's really going on, and why.

Incidentally, I can certainly see cases where physical or spiritual needs are best met through owning property. Any needs that requires us to provide shelter or facilities (for the homeless, for the sick, etc.) requires the "true church" to either pay rent or own property.

Another straw man. I never said that we shouldn't have real estate and buildings. I can't understand why folks find such glee in pushing another's statements and meaning beyond the bounds of reason in order to build a case that is nothing more than a boxer beating the air.

Thank you ... I think I've clarified it in my mind now!

Yeah, you clarified something, although I can't understand what..... :smt017

BTW

 

[Solo]

Giving the first fruits of one's increase as revealed by the wise Solomon, is God's way to tear down the walls of selfishness, and build in its stead a giving, loving, mind of Christ individual with the freedom of contentment in this temporary world to operate within the will of God.

How do you define "increase"? Do you suppose that one's wages are a form of increase?

If the Lord considered one's wages to be a form of increase, then why were the people of Israel not required to tithe from their wages?

I think I can answer this, but I would first like to see your response.

If God hasn't revealed to you that you are a selfish giver and your stance on giving stinks, then continue in the manner that you have been, and do not attack others that are giving as they are because they are doing so as unto the Lord. The increase concerns all of ones increase in the manner of the times in the manner of the culture in the manner of one's increase. Simple.

Another gift of God to believers is the gathering together of the believers in what some call "organized religion". I call the gathering of the saints together in a home, or a corporate building, or a ediface called a "Church", Church. It is a place where God gives his will to the elders and allows the parts of the body of Christ to work throughout the communities as God leads. Giving to the body of Christ is spoken of in a positive manner in the Bible.

Well, yes and no.

First, the type of meeting we see going on within institutional, religious organizations is nowhere exemplified in scripture. Yes, it is important to gather together, but the so-called "service", being the main gathering, is the one place where the believers are kept from functioning as a living, breathing body. Instead, they are relegated to being a passive audience. How does one fellowship with the backs of other people's heads?

Secondly, giving to the body, as described in the NT, clealry was expressed within the context of meeting needs rather than allowing the lion's share to go for the upkeep of a facility. We're living out an expression where the cart is in front of the horse. We are allowing our facilities to be the greater need of our giving than the meeting of needs of our fellow believers. This is wrong.

You sound a lot like Judas did when Mary was going to clean his feet and pour expensive perfume on Jesus feet. He thought the perfume would be much better used if sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus rebuked him and continued to allow Mary to use the perfume in the manner that she had first attempted.

If you have a problem going to Church where God's children worship, study, feed and clothe the needy, counsel the oppressed, organize the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then don't go. Pray for a place that God would have you go, and pray that if there be any error in your understanding, to correct it so that you can serve him with all of your heart, mind, and soul, with all of your strength.

If one does not give a portion of God's belongings to others as he determines, then that one is short-changed in the blessings of God. The most important chapter relating to tithing, in my opinion, is that which I shared; Proverbs 3.

Then, do you believe that it's right to once again place fellow believers under the bondage of the Law? The Law of tithing is exactly what Proverbs was referring to. If we are once again under that obligation, then who can be saved? The bondage of the Law is antothetical to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. He died that we may be redeemed and free, not placed once against under the bondage of an inferior covenant.

Do you worry more about being under the bondage of the law, or under the bondage to your sin?

Paul says that the law is fulfilled when one loves another. Jesus taught that the ten commandments hinged on two commands, Love the Lord your God with all thy heart, mind, soul; and Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus said that committing adultery was looking at a woman with lust now where in the past it was a physical act. Now that the Law is written in a believers heart, he/she will walk circumspectly according the guidence of the Holy Spirit who dwells within them.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:7-10

Proverbs also spoke of burnt sacrifices. Are we therefore bound by that as well? I'm not talking about sin offerings, but rather the many other sacrifices, such as thyank offerings, etc.

Quite frankly, I see nothing but problems when folks dredg up the Law of tithing from different sectors of the OT, such as Proverbs, as if it were still binding upon us today. Would you mind clarifiying your use of Proverbs, so that I can make sure that I'm not misunderstanding your application?

Thanks

If God hasn't spoken to you in the Old Testament writings, then a couple of things might be the reason. Either you do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you to interpret the Word of God, or you have a stronghold of satan that blocks your understanding and you must deal with that portion of your life through prayer and fasting, or you may just not be ready to hear what God has to say to you in this area. Those are a few reasons, and I hope you get it worked out. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
Thanks