Tithing - The Truth Please

[Klee shay]

I think it's a matter of giving your all. Tithing can become a comfortable gesture we get used to and forget the meaning behind tithing in the first place.

It was originally established to keep the Levites fed. Although the Levites were in charge of the ark of the convernant and maintaining all the rituals, sacrifices, etc - they were also considered poor and completely dependent on the children of Israel's increases for their needs.

This didn't change. The Levites were always poor and dependant on the children of Israel. Not once did they rise above them. So the message is about the responsibility of sustaining PEOPLE, not ministries exclusively.

We should give our all - whatever that is to each individual - in giving to other people. There is no comfortable cap; just the treasury of God we all draw upon.

To this day I feel more comfortable in a humble church than a flashy one. It means the money is being used where it needs to be. :wink:

 

[BeforeThereWas]

But not the blessings promised to those who keep the tithe, is that it?

The blessings in Malachi are built upon a foundation that many today are trying to reconstruct in accordance with their own personal desires, or the desires of those whose teachings they have chosen to blindly accept as biblical fact. Some things that we can observe about the foundation laid by God, upon which Malachi spoke, are:

1) The tithe was clearly and specifically defined in the Law as the increase of the crops and herds. At no time was it ever defined as coming from any increase of silver and gold, the value of which was well established long before Israel ever entered the promised land. At no time, therefore, was it defined as coming from the wages of those who exchanged their time and their labor for currency, silver, gold, or anything else.

2) 100% of the tithe went for the meeting of needs, which means that not one morsel of it went for the upkeep of the temple, synagogues (which didn't even exist until after the second captivity), or anything else associated with the religious fervor of the people or the leadership.

3) The promises outlined in Malachi do not at all negate the fact that the Israelites were still living in a fallen world, therefore suffering, loss and death still being harsh realities among individuals throughout the entire nation.

4) The promises in Malachi were spoken to the people as a nation, not specifically to each and ever individual, therefore nullifying point #3.

5) The Law governing the tithe was still in effect at that time (obviously), which is mostly ignored by those who utilize that section of scripture as leverage for their case, all in the hopes that they can escape the other points above, merely by shrugging them off as inconsequential. The fact is, one cannot cast aside so easily the foundational truths that uphold and lend solidity to that which Malachi addressed.

Today, however, one like Malachi could come forward once again and point a finger of accusation at those today who proclaim the tithe to be a valid requirement upon believers. Those people seem to think that they can lay the lawful requirement for tithing upon others, while at the same time perpetrating the very disobedience (which we see going on throughout the history of the Church over the past 1700 years) that brought guilt upon the leadership and the people to whom Malachi was speaking. How can that be?

Quite simply, the tithe today, deeply rooted in tradition, is routinely mishandled by organized religion. The tithe-teachers want so much to enjoy the freedom to pull forth the blessings issued through Malachi, make them into promises aimed at each and every individual, regardless of our living in a fallen world, and leave out the governing and defining dynamics upon which the tithe was built. They do this on their own authority, not upon any authority given them by God, or even creation itself.

When confronting them about the authority they are relying upon for this radical shift in the rules and definition surrounding today's tithe, they completely avoid the question by pointing at the few benevolent aspects of organized religion as their defense, which is no defense at all.

Case in point:

Lev 10:1-2
1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

The two boys talked about in the verses above could easily have said, "Now wait a minute, Lord. Our good intentions were only to serve you." The fact is, those two boys did that which went against the specific, governing rules concerning the dedication and rituals to be performed within the tabernacle. They took it upon themselves to try and redefine what God had already defined as being acceptable before Him. They did this upon their own authority. Again, this clearly is rooted in the wisdom of what is written in Prov. 14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

I'm not saying that fire will come down out of Heaven and devour those who mishandle the tithe, first fruits, primary portion, or whatever one wishes to call that which is always shown to be for the needy, but the fact remains that disobedience places one in a very precarious position. Should we not seek obedience rather than what we think is acceptable? I'm not trying to build the strength of my words on a mere question, but rather trying to get those who support today's gross disobedience to God's word to present something, anything, that at all lends a supporting hand to their case. Most of what I've seen are emotional arguments rather than supporting scripture, in context, and legitimately applied.

If individuals choose a tenth as a personal standard for their giving, then that's fine with me. However, when folks think they can lay the burden of the entire Law upon the shoulders of others through the legalistic requirement to tithe, then they themselves are cursed according to Galatians chapter three and chapter five.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Well, I've looked over Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18, and I see no stipulation to that effect. It appears to be for the current location and time. Only in Deuteronomy (12) is the tithe specified for after the crossing of the Jordan.

You appear to have contradicted yourself. First you said that you don't see such a stipulation, and then you acknowledge what I said when pointing at Deut. 12.

Deut 12:1 says, "These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.

That's pretty straightforward. In the desert, they were allowed to do whatever seemed right in his own eyes, as is mentioned in Deut. 12:7-8:

7 And there ye shall (notice the future tense, not present or past tense) eat before the LORD your God, and ye shall (future tense once again) rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the LORD thy God hath blessed thee.
8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day (present tense), every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

You may not see it, but it's as plain as could possibly be for anyone who reads the text for what it says.

Okay, what does the Bible say about tithing:
Deuteronomy 14:23b-26 (NLT), "...The purpose of tithing is to teach you always to fear the Lord your God. Now the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to be honored might be a long way from your home. If so, you may sell the tithe portion of your crops and herds and take the money to the place the Lord your God chooses. When you arrive, use the money to buy anything you want-an ox, a sheep, some wine, or beer."

There's your exchange for currency, unless you have one of your lame excuses for disqualifying it.

Come now. Let's keep this all within the realm of honesty, shall we? How does this support your thinking that the tithe is of our wages we exchange for our labor? If you read the above verses once again, the tithe was currency ONLY when upon the foundation of a specific allowance. You appear to have ignored that the currency was then used to purchase food and drink, once again edibles, but ONLY in relation to the celebration, not that which was given to the Levite, the orphan, the widow and the stranger. You can attempt injecting all these gyrations and erractic dances all you want, but the truth always wins out in the end. Nowhere does this text, or any other having to do with the tithe make allowances for it to be used for acquiring real estate and erecting buildings, like we see going on today.

Choose not to tithe...
Malachi 3:6-9, "I am the Lord, and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob...

Are you a descendent of Jacob?

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4)

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2)

If you want to live the Law of tithes, then you are responsible for all the Law in your own life, and are fallen from grace.

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal. 3:10)

God's moral Law is certainly valid for today, but you, dear sir, are not authorized to:

1) Lay the burden and curse of the Law upon other followers of Christ Jesus, and

2) to pick and choose from the Law those things that so happen to suit your agenda, redefine them, and make your own rules in how to apply them. By doing so, you've become an authority unto yourself rather than being governed by the clear teachings of God's word.

We are the temple and the priesthood.

Yes, but not under the curse of the Law. You've attempted to make the Law a thing of convenience from which you can pick and choose whatever you want from it, and then rearrange the priorities exemplified in that very same Law. You show me where the tithe was used for buildings. Can you at least do that? If nothing else, show me one example of what's going on today in the OT scriptures in relation to the tithe.

Words mean things unless you decide that those words where spoken to a specific group of people, or Old Testament Law, or, let's see, what are some of the other lame excuses you've used to reject God's Word...

This is a very sophistic approach to all this. You still have not shown me that we are still under the obligations of the Law for the tithe, which would then mean that we also are under the obligations of circumcision (therefore nullifying Paul's teaching on this aspect of the Law) and all the other points of the Law. What gives you the authority to pull the tithe away from the temple and the Levites, and redefine it as the support of buildings and lawn care? The sheer idiocy of this is so plain for all to see. You're beating a dead horse with your stick of Law.

If you want to convince anyone, then at least answer the questions put forth.

Acts 4:34-35, "There was no poverty among them, because people who owned land or houses sold them and brought the money to the apostles to give to others in need."

Here's a prime example of your avoidance of what I asked you to provide. I asked you to show me any example of the tithe going for the support of real estate and buildings, and the above is what you quipped. Come on. At least be honest enough to break it all down and explain your application of this verse to the question. The above quote clearly shows that what was laid at the apostle's feet went for meeting needs, not for what we see going on today. Is this the best you can do? You destroyed your own case.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

1) produce, product, revenue

a) product, yield, crops (of the earth usually)

b) income, revenue

c) gain (of wisdom) (fig)

d) product of lips (fig)

By its very definition, increase means wages. Or do you have a problem with Strongs, too?

Indeed? Tell me, why do you think that you can apply a particular definition of a key word that happens to suit your agenda, especially when the definition you chose doesn't fit the context of its use? Nobody, in his right mind, would ever attempt a ploy that applies such nonsensical rules. The CONTEXT within which the word "increase" in our discussion has to do with the increase from the produce of the fields and the herds. Increase as opposed to what? LOSS. One can have an increase in earnings. Earnings from what? INVESTMENTS. Wages EXCHANGED for money are NOWHERE defined as a form of increase. You found a reference to REVENUE in that definition. Wages are not limited only to REVENUE. I can have a business, and take in REVENUE, and not have ANY INCREASE if what I took in was a LOSS rather than an INCREASE (profit).

How did this simple, easy to understand, plain fact escape you?

You will not find one knowledgable Bible scholar and/or language scholar who will support your illogical ploys and play on words. Is anyone else in this thread willing to go along with this? If so, please identify yourself.

I think you stand alone on this one, because you appear to think that winning at all costs is reason enough to employ dishonest application of rules that you would never apply in most any other case.

Besides, I too have Strong's, and "income" is not in that list of possible definitions (the choice of which is ALWAYS governed by the context within which the word is used).

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "shekels" the currency used after the old convernant was established into law?

I can recall men being charged in shekels by way of fines for certain offences?

Very good point, but come now. Let's not confuse this whole issue with facts. :-D

You're right.

However, when you're dealing with those whose understanding originates from what appears to be another planet, it's difficult to draw parellels of understanding.

BTW

 

[Imagican]

I still agree that as we were freed from the chains of the law, (and gentiles were never bound by them as the Jews to start with), we would also have been freed from the ancient laws concerning tithing. We are certainly to give WHATEVER and WHENEVER we see true need of our neighbor, but this idea of tithing ten percent to the Church is nothing more than tradition created by the Roman Catholic Church in order for those that were too lazy to actually work to sit back and live rich off of those that they forced to support them and their fancy traditions.

Paul offers that we should choose HIM for an example of how to live our lives. He worked for his bread and through that and his faith and obedience he lived his life for God and Christ. I don't remember reading one word from him intended to force his followers to give through guilt.

If I'm not mistaken this thread is about the modern Church, (or organized religion in general), having the right to demand tithing from it's followers and whether it's based on scripture or tradition, (greed, laziness, quest for power, etc.... etc....). I know of no place in the Bible where the Church is commanded to tithe. We are instructed by Christ to give the shirt off our back to one in need by He never commanded us to give a percentage of our income or wealth to Him or His Church.

 

[kwag_myers]

If I'm not mistaken this thread is about the modern Church, (or organized religion in general), having the right to demand tithing from it's followers and whether it's based on scripture or tradition, (greed, laziness, quest for power, etc.... etc....). I know of no place in the Bible where the Church is commanded to tithe. We are instructed by Christ to give the shirt off our back to one in need by He never commanded us to give a percentage of our income or wealth to Him or His Church.

This is what this thread has become. It started with a request for scripture on the subject. When I offered it, it was rejected.

Typical modern day pharisee (not you Imagican), ask for proof, then reject it because it doesn't suit your purpose.

I never intended to imply that we should keep the law for the sake of keeping the law. I think we should look at the law of the tithe as a principle. We serve the same God as those to whom the law was given. Has God's standards changed?

As to the right to demand a tithe, Imagican and the others are correct that we are free from that. However, when I suggested that one leave a church that practices such policies, that too was rejected.

Since nothing I offer is up to BeforeThereWas' standards of acceptance, there's no point in my continuing on this. The truth is, BeforeThereWas never really wanted an intelligent discussion in the first place.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I still agree that as we were freed from the chains of the law, (and gentiles were never bound by them as the Jews to start with), we would also have been freed from the ancient laws concerning tithing. We are certainly to give WHATEVER and WHENEVER we see true need of our neighbor, but this idea of tithing ten percent to the Church is nothing more than tradition created by the Roman Catholic Church in order for those that were too lazy to actually work to sit back and live rich off of those that they forced to support them and their fancy traditions.

Very true indeed. It would seem, however, that some think there's a mandate in places like Acts 15 for the Gentile believers to continue in one or two of the hand-picked portions of the ceremonial and cultural Laws of the Jews. Tithing just so happens to be the key feature of that Law that benefits organized religion the most. They've had 17 centuries to think through some pretty slick sounding apologetic phraseology, rooted in the deepest of emotions, with not a shred of it legitimately arising from the Bible, except the ragged, theological tapestry pieced together with disjointed verses pulled out of context. It's pretty much a given that the "Protestant" branch of roman catholicism is a mirror image of the very institution from which it originally hailed. So it comes as no surprise that it sees itself through genetically similar eyes, therefore believing in the idea that its roots provide it entitlements to move through this earth with its hands in the pockets of those who keep it going, be they true believers or otherwise.

Religionists completely ignore the fact that the Church exists in spite of organized religion, not because of it.

When it comes to giving, there's far more integrity in handing over money to the family down the street suffering from job layoff, or whatever hardship they're suffering, than there is in handing it over to organized religion, all the while assuming that it will be utilized properly. There will always be those who disagree, but then they rely upon a flawed theology and upon emotional argumentation as support for the actions of a practice that's nowhere exemplified in scripture. Folks seem to think that the historicity of a tradition somehow gives it God's stamp of approval. If that were a sure measure of God's approval, then budhism's way ahead of the Church with it having been in existence 1000 years earlier.

Paul offers that we should choose HIM for an example of how to live our lives. He worked for his bread and through that and his faith and obedience he lived his life for God and Christ. I don't remember reading one word from him intended to force his followers to give through guilt.

Well, you have to admit that guilt is one of the prime emotions played upon to get more money out of people. One of the most effective accusations in support of the guilt complex is to say that those who don't tithe are greedy. That's almost like a junky saying that those who don't support their local street-corner drug dealer are greedy.

If I'm not mistaken this thread is about the modern Church, (or organized religion in general), having the right to demand tithing from it's followers and whether it's based on scripture or tradition, (greed, laziness, quest for power, etc.... etc....). I know of no place in the Bible where the Church is commanded to tithe. We are instructed by Christ to give the shirt off our back to one in need by He never commanded us to give a percentage of our income or wealth to Him or His Church.

Ahh, but when those people laid the money at the apostle's feet, that is assumed by many to be an example of those people handing over their giving to the Church, which then took the largest portion of it to purchase real estate and errect buildings. Such a practice is nothing less than the givers lavishing their giving right back upon themselves, because each member assumes he's reaping benefit from the organization and its professional staffing expenses. The membership also assumes that the leadership it elects, hires, or convinces to serve with little or no pay, automatically qualifies as leaders of biblical calibre.

If I had a dollar for every assumption religionists hold as being biblical fact, I'd be a monetarilly rich man right now.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Typical modern day pharisee (not you Imagican), ask for proof, then reject it because it doesn't suit your purpose.

Getting past all the name-calling, I'm somewhat surprised that you, or anyone else here, would think that you posted a legitimate, irrefutable, infallible defense of your position. You know, if I were to do that, you'd accuse me of the sin of pride and arrogance, and that would be a well-founded accusation of which I would be guilty. However, I don't assume that my position is utterly infallible, therefore my willingness to engage in dialogue to try and discover as to if I'm in error. You, on the other hand, seem to see no problem perpetrating, from your perspective, the very sin of which you would most certainly accuse me. Why is that?

I never intended to imply that we should keep the law for the sake of keeping the law. I think we should look at the law of the tithe as a principle. We serve the same God as those to whom the law was given. Has God's standards changed?

Then why do you continue to avoid what I see as being a prime fallacy in your beliefs. That Law to which you have been pointing dictates that 100% of the tithe went for the meeting of needs, not for buildings and real estate. I agree with you that God's standards have NOT changed, but YOU are supporting a radical change to those very principles you claim to believe as being relevant today. I have no problem with agreeing with the primary premise you've stated above, but you've failed to effectively defend the idea that organized religion has any right whatsoever to utilize the people's tithe in support of buildings, real estate and lawn care, rather than meeting real needs. I asked where this radical shift in priorities is supported within scripture, and you avoided my question like you would a deadly disease. Now, who REALLY is the pharisee? You're gazing into a well-polished mirror, my friend.

As to the right to demand a tithe, Imagican and the others are correct that we are free from that. However, when I suggested that one leave a church that practices such policies, that too was rejected.

By whom? I don't recall anyone rejecting this. I do recall a general rejection of your clearly stating that the tithe is "for us today". Here's the exact quote for your recollection;

"So, if tithing isn't for us today, then none of the blessings associated with tithing are ours to receive."

How else are we supposed to take a statement like that, if not that we're still under obligation to tithe if in fact those promises given to the nation of Israel can be transplanted to any other nation that has no temple and that has no Levites? You can't conveniently discard those elements of the imagry that don't fit in with a preconceived ideology.

How about your manipulative choice of mistranslations of the Hebrew texts, such as in your use of Deut. 14:23 from the NLT. Here's an exact quote of your post:

"Okay, what does the Bible say about tithing:
Deuteronomy 14:23b-26 (NLT), "...The purpose of tithing is to teach you always to fear the Lord your God. Now the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to be honored might be a long way from your home. If so, you may sell the tithe portion of your crops and herds and take the money to the place the Lord your God chooses. When you arrive, use the money to buy anything you want-an ox, a sheep, some wine, or beer.""

Now, here's what the KJV says, verse 23:

"And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always."

As anyone can see, the text doesn't say that the purpose for tithing is to learn to fear the Lord. The purpose for eating of one's tithe before the Lord is for learning to fear the Lord. I don't blame you for the existence of that bad translation, but your use of it makes it pretty clear that you didn't do your homework.

Since nothing I offer is up to BeforeThereWas' standards of acceptance, there's no point in my continuing on this. The truth is, BeforeThereWas never really wanted an intelligent discussion in the first place.

Your refusal to answer simple questions, of which I asked many, paints a clear picture of the fact that you had no intention of engaging this issue with honest, forthright dialogue. You obviously came here thinking that your viewpoint is infallible, and have demonstrated a severe dislike of anyone daring to disagree with you, so the real culprit isn't myself in your inability to defend bad theology. Looking back through this thread from your first response to me onward, I can't find anyone who at all agreed with you, but there are those who complimented the truths I put forth from God's word.

When a man rightfully slams a rolled newspaper down upon the nose of a dog for defecating on the floor of his house, the dog will generally slink away with his tail between his legs. I'd rather your departure be based upon a more dignified note than to leave unanswered the legitimate questions you've been asked. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that my position is infallible. If I thought my beliefs were infallible, I'd whine about how others don't agree with me, falsely accuse them, stomp my feet in protest, and walk away without adequately defending my position.

BTW

 

[videocrafter]

Your questions are most relevant. Here is my view on the matter--http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/ntgiving.html

Regards,Paul

Great link there Paul, thanks. It took my whole morning, but was a good study! :

 

[videocrafter]

Your right that nowhere does it say 10% in the NT. It does however say to give 100% if required by God...Christians should give according to the NT guidlines:

1) Proportional to income
2) Consistent
3) Sacrifical
4) Cheerful

Thanks for the additional scriptures NRoof! I think I might just happen to have a couple online messages on the subject for anyone interested:

The Basics of Blessing - Outline

Discover the Joy of Giving

 

[kwag_myers]

Typical modern day pharisee (not you Imagican), ask for proof, then reject it

because it doesn't suit your purpose.

Getting past all the name-calling, I'm somewhat surprised that you, or anyone else here, would think that you posted a

legitimate, irrefutable, infallible defense of your position. You know, if I were to do that, you'd accuse me of the sin of

pride and arrogance, and that would be a well-founded accusation of which I would be guilty. However, I don't assume that my

position is utterly infallible, therefore my willingness to engage in dialogue to try and discover as to if I'm in error.

You, on the other hand, seem to see no problem perpetrating, from your perspective, the very sin of which you would most

certainly accuse me. Why is that?

Here are some examples of your blatant hypocrisy:

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

kwag_myers - Increase (Deuteronomy 14:22) according to Strongs - teb-oo-aw'

1) produce, product, revenue

a) product, yield, crops (of the earth usually)

b) income, revenue

c) gain (of wisdom) (fig)

d) product of lips (fig)

By its very definition, increase means wages.

BeforeThereWas - Indeed? Tell me, why do you think that you can apply a particular definition of a key word that happens to suit your agenda, especially when the definition you chose doesn't fit the context of its use?

Explain to me how my using the translation of "income, revenue" is any different than your using "product, yield, crops"? The very thing that you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing here. You take "a" and condemn me for taking "b". And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?

BeforeThereWas - 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?

kwag_myers - Hebrews 7:6 (NLT) "But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God." Also, Malachi 3:10 instructs us to bring our tithe into the storehouse so that there in meat in His house. So, is your church the House of God?

BeforeThereWas - I disagree. Melchizedek collected nothing. Abraham freely gave him a tenth of other people's property, based upon no requirement. There's no indication that Melchizedek was there to "collect" anything.

How much clearer can this be? The Bible says Melchizedek collected a tenth from Abraham, and you say "no he didn't". You're not arguing we me on this one, you're arguing with scripture. And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?

BeforeThereWas - I am equally amazed that you think that, on your own authority, you can transplant a promise given to a specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances, over to us today.

So the Old Testiment Prophets who spoke God's word to Israel don't apply to us today? How about the epistles? Do they apply to us today? Weren't they all written to a "...specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances..."?

BeforeThereWas - So far you've engaged much emotional argumentation without any legitimate, scriptural support.

Show me where I have fail to use scripture to support my point. I don't think that you can. What you have done is to say, "Oh, that doesn't apply to me". And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?

Go ahead, be cursed. Hebrews 10:26, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Your refusal to answer simple questions, of which I asked many, paints a clear picture of the fact that you had no intention of engaging this issue with honest, forthright dialogue. You obviously came here thinking that your viewpoint is infallible, and have demonstrated a severe dislike of anyone daring to disagree with you, so the real culprit isn't myself in your inability to defend bad theology

BTW, you have to imagine the frustration of a prophet :roll: when God consistently DOESN'T send "she-bears out of the woods to tare" his opponents :wink:

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Here are some examples of your blatant hypocrisy:

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

kwag_myers - Increase (Deuteronomy 14:22) according to Strongs - teb-oo-aw'

1) produce, product, revenue

a) product, yield, crops (of the earth usually)

b) income, revenue

c) gain (of wisdom) (fig)

d) product of lips (fig)

By its very definition, increase means wages.

BeforeThereWas - Indeed? Tell me, why do you think that you can apply a particular definition of a key word that happens to suit your agenda, especially when the definition you chose doesn't fit the context of its use?

Explain to me how my using the translation of "income, revenue" is any different than your using "product, yield, crops"? The very thing that you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing here. You take "a" and condemn me for taking "b". And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?

The choice of which of those "definitions," as you call them, applies is based upon the context within which the word is used. We've been observing the "increase" in relation to the text's clear and unmistakable references to crops and herds, not money. The term "increase" is either a transitive verb, intransitive verb, or a noun, depending on its use. In this case, it's use as a noun is dictated to be in reference to "increase" of what? Crops and herds, right? Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Additionally, focusing upon a conditional allowance for exchanging the tithe for currency, as if it were the absolute rule for what they all did, is assumption at its worst. Do you have any facts as to what percentage of the farmers and herdsmen exchanged their tithe for money? You also asked in your initial post to me about the existence of currency at the time the Law was written. Well, this pretty well takes care of that question of yours. Currency obviously existed at the time the Law was written, as is evidenced by the text. For the sake of fairness, here's an exact quote of your question in this regard:

Could you please tell me what form of currency the Israelites where using when God gave Moses the Law?

I don't know what their currency was made of, but there obviously was some sort of currency in existence, the value of which was recognized by all. So, my statements and question still stand:

1) The only time currency is at all involved with the tithe is if it were exchanged for money for the sake of difficulty in transport to the appointed place.

2) If such an exchange were made, then the Law clearly mandates that the money be spent on the purchase of whatever the tither lusted after in his heart, which further reinforces the fact that we see absolutely no money being handed over to the Levite; only tangible, edible, potable goods for consumption of the body, not the wallet.

3) Where does God's Law show us that the wage earner was required to hand over any portion of his wages to the Levite?

4) Where does God's Law show us that the wage of the wage earner is anywhere classified as a form of "increase"?

Anybody knows that the wages of the ancients and our wages today are a direct exchange for labor and time. If I have given -

1) of my time, which takes me away from my family each weekday,
2) of my talents,
3) of my learned skills, and
4) of my effort in labor,

- how does one arrive at the assumption that this exchange is at all a form of increase? What is increase? Simply, it describes what happens within the realm of crops and herds.

1) A man sows a seed, and harvests anywhere from 30 to 1000+ times what he planted, therefore exponentially increasing in number.

2) The herds breed and bear forth offspring, therefore increasing the herd in number.

A tithe is nowhere in God's Law talked about as being handed over to the Levite from wage earners, such a those who labor in the fields, etc. Now, if you have an example of this, I would like to see it. All you have pointed at thus far is the direct references to crops and herds, not to those who make tables, chairs, linen, laborers, or anyone else within the manufacturing and food preparation crafts.

Everyone knows that the tither could exchange his tithe for money IF the appointed place were too far for transport. Apart from that, there's no other allowance for an exchange of the tithe given. There's actually a penalty of 5% for exchanging the tithe for any other reason. (Lev. 27:31) The exchange for money was also only in reference to that portion that was consumed by the tither, his family and servants before the Lord.

How much clearer can this be? The Bible says Melchizedek collected a tenth from Abraham, and you say "no he didn't". You're not arguing we me on this one, you're arguing with scripture. And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?

Can you show me where it says that Melchizedek went out there for the purpose of collecting a tenth of the spoils? I've already quoted to you where it says, in God's word, that he received and tenth, which shoots down the idea that he went out there to collect based upon some unknown, non-existent obligation for Abraham to hand over a tenth of the spoils. He did it freely, without lawful requirement, unless you know of something that we all have missed.

[quote:81d41]I am equally amazed that you think that, on your own authority, you can transplant a promise given to a specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances, over to us today.

So the Old Testament Prophets who spoke God's word to Israel don't apply to us today? How about the epistles? Do they apply to us today? Weren't they all written to a "...specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances..."?[/quote:81d41]

Well, let's put this to the acid test, shall we? Which prophesies are you talking about? I'm sure there are some that we can find some distant parallel on the basis of God's moral absolutes, but to assume that tithing to organized religion today will bring the same blessings upon this nation as was promised to those who were still under the Law stretches the limits of reason. You know just as well as I that using the tithe for any other reason than to meet needs was clearly not allowed, nor are we shown any examples of the kind of nonsense we see going on today. Even that small, minute portion that was consumed before the Lord, met the needs of those who consumed it. None of it was used for the temple upkeep, the establishment of synagogues, or anything else you have assumed into a text that clearly fails to support your assumption to the contrary.

[quote:81d41]So far you've engaged much emotional argumentation without any legitimate, scriptural support.

Show me where I have fail to use scripture to support my point. I don't think that you can. What you have done is to say, "Oh, that doesn't apply to me". And I'm the prideful, arrogant one?[/quote:81d41]

If you insist. You really are a glutton for punishment. You said:

Okay, what does the Bible say about tithing:
Deuteronomy 14:23b-26 (NLT), "...The purpose of tithing is to teach you always to fear the Lord your God. Now the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to be honored might be a long way from your home. If so, you may sell the tithe portion of your crops and herds and take the money to the place the Lord your God chooses. When you arrive, use the money to buy anything you want-an ox, a sheep, some wine, or beer."

You conveniently ignored my pointing out that the above quoted text from the NLT is clearly a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The KJV, NAS, NIV, ASV, NKJ, etc., all disagree with this one you chose to use. You assumed that the purpose for tithing was to teach the fear of the Lord. The NLT is notorious for its excesses in mistranslation. Therefore, you have failed to legitimately support your statement that the purpose of the tithe was as you said in the above quote, mainly because you used an illegitimate translation.

Go ahead, be cursed. Hebrews 10:26, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

Anyone can make the Bible say just about anything they want when pulling verses out of context.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Your refusal to answer simple questions, of which I asked many, paints a clear picture of the fact that you had no intention of engaging this issue with honest, forthright dialogue. You obviously came here thinking that your viewpoint is infallible, and have demonstrated a severe dislike of anyone daring to disagree with you, so the real culprit isn't myself in your inability to defend bad theology

BTW, you have to imagine the frustration of a prophet :roll: when God consistently DOESN'T send "she-bears out of the woods to tare" his opponents :wink:

I can just see kwag standing at the register to pay for his "R" rated movie rental at Blockbuster, reaching into his wallet and handing the clerk a $100 bill, and saying, "Can you make change for this 100 increase?"

Acid tests like this usually reveal something for what it really is, which in this case is the applicaiton of the rule that says, "Win at all costs." :fadein:

BTW

 

[BradtheImpaler]

BTW,

You know what's funny? Even the Jewish leadership of today no longer require a tithe from their congregations. The Jews, whom Christians scorn as "still being under the law", realize that the tithe is no longer applicable. But somehow, the "Spirit-filled" leadership among the Christian churches choose to resurrect the one law which should insure them a greater percentage of cash in the offering plate.

Coincidence? :roll:

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You know what's funny? Even the Jewish leadership of today no longer require a tithe from their congregations. The Jews, whom Christians scorn as "still being under the law", realize that the tithe is no longer applicable.

I'm no expert in Jewish custom, but it's possible that if they still had a temple, they would still be practicing even that part of the Law since they reject Christ Jesus. It seems strange that, as important as the temple is to them, they haven't fought to get the temple mound back from the muslims. They've had many opportunities, but they've remained mostly scattered all over the earth rather than to fight for that most important structure (to them that is).

But somehow, the "Spirit-filled" leadership among the Christian churches choose to resurrect the one law which should insure them a greater percentage of cash in the offering plate.

Therein you have the main thrust behind the focus upon this one Law, among so many, organized religion has chosen to ram down the throats of its followers. Today, there's less emphsais upon the tithe because organized religion's leadership knows many would walk out, never to darken their doorstep again. Shadows are money. Some still strangle their people with this Law.

This leftover relic of the roman catholic religion will continue to serve its intended purpose. Sweetening it up with a few benevolent outreaches, coupled together with the mass ignorance of the scriptures by most of organized religion's followers, make it more palletable so that its supporters can continue on with utter abandon of personal responsibility.

BTW

 

[lovely]

I am reminded of the widow who gave her mite. It wasn't much, but it was all she had. Probably having no income, she stepped out on faith and trusted God, while putting the needs of others above her own.

The tithes, and offerings, that we are giving are God's. He is our Provider, Jehova Jirah. I think we should just truly be given over to God in this matter. Give to the church, support them. Give to missions, support them. Give to families, and family members in need, in whatever way you can....give! Give your money, your encouragement, your service...give whatever you have. You can not give too much, or too little if you are being led by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I am reminded of the widow who gave her mite. It wasn't much, but it was all she had. Probably having no income, she stepped out on faith and trusted God, while putting the needs of others above her own.

Good sentiment. That dear woman is the object of much speculation. It would have been nice to know more about her, but we're told nothing. What we are told in the text draws our eyes to the Master Himself rather than the widow, and what He was trying to say about the imagry before Him. (She was giving into the temple treasury, not the tithe.) It was about proportions more than it was about anything else, as is evidenced by His words.

What I'm driving at is this: I could praise that dear woman with the most lavish and articulate words and flare, but to her, my praises amount to nothing. She received praise from the Most High, which has infinite value to her, and carries an infinite weight of meaning and truth. In other words, she received infinitely more than she could possibly have ever given of her material things. Remember proportions: She gave all she had, but received infinitely more than if she had been the richest woman in all the world and given it all. That accolade was of a worth beyond any measure.

The tithes, and offerings, that we are giving are God's.

That which we don't give is also God's. All that any of us possesses is His. The issue I've been putting forth isn't about ownership. That's an easy matter which is beyond argument. The issue is about the direction of our giving. We have walked away from biblical command end example when we give the primary portion of our giving to organized religion, which is once again a robbery of the poor, just as in the time of Malachi. Institutions absorbing that portion into their own expenditures is clearly antithetical to biblical examples.

He is our Provider, Jehova Jirah. I think we should just truly be given over to God in this matter.

How does one defend the idea that giving to the abusive system of organized religion is somehow synonymous with giving to God?

Give to the church, support them.

There's a vast difference between your "church" (small "c") and the Church (capital "C"). One is worthy of receiving our giving for distribution to the poor and those who truly serve the Lord, the other is not because of its historic track record of being self-serving and overly extravagant.

Those expensive buildings and the expensive real estate they sit upon are not representative of the Church. They represent themselves first and foremost because they are material, not spiritual. The Church is represented by the temples who walk this earth, and are filled with the Holy Spirit of God, truly representative of Christ and His Glory.

BTW

 

[lovely]

BTW,

I completely agree with your post. As a believer not only can I agree that we should not support a corrupt church financialy, but we should be standing against there false teachings and such.

As far as the rest of your post I think the emphasis should be simply that nothing in our, it is all His, and we should be good stewards in every way.

Blessings