Tithing

[titushome]

Quite a few pages back in the "Apostolic Truth Questions" thread, there was a side topic about tithing: whether it's biblical for followers of Jesus, what it's based on, how to execute it, etc.  I've been a reading a bit more on the topic and would like to resurrect it, so I'm starting a new thread.

Firstly, in the former thread OGIA posted the following:

A wise elder told me this about tithing a few years back.....

Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, a priest and, I believe, a theophany of the Lord God.  This pattern continued through the tabernacle.  Was the high priest position annulled or was it continued under Him who was after the order of the first OT high priest?  It was continued when God Himself, not a theophany, came to earth as man and fulfilled the duties of the High Priest to perfection with the perfect sacrifice.

Question: where does the NT ever annul the payment of tithes to the High Priest?  Is not the Head of the Church the One in whom we should invest our monies, the firstfruits of what HE has blessed us with?  Doesn't "freely you have been given, freely give" apply to money, too?  Doesn't it seem that the practice of tithing never was done away with, as the high priest role never was, either?

Ever since then I have seen the necessity of tithing.  No, not to pay my way into heaven, but to return to God's Kingdom what He has blessed me with...to support the ministry, to feed the poor, to build new churches, to cloth the naked, to help a brother and/or sister in need, etc, etc. 

I've been reading and thinking lately about the priesthood of all believers: all Christians today are the NT counterparts of the priesthood under the OT Law.  So it seems to me that OGIA's analogy above would apply only if the OT priest paid tithes to the OT high priest.  I haven't studied this out yet - I will - but if my memory serves me correctly, the priests were not required to pay tithes at all.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Secondly, in my reading this verse in particular stood out to me - nay, it virtually leapt off the page:

5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren that they would go on ahead to you and arrange beforehand your previously promised bountiful gift, so that the same would be ready as a bountiful gift and not affected by covetousness.
6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

If tithing is in fact a requirement for believers in Christ, would this not have been the perfect place for Paul to mention it?  Something like, "Each on must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion - yet not neglecting that God requires tithes of all men - for God loves a cheerful giver."  But Paul mentioned no such requirement.  Neither did he mention it in any of his other writings that addressed the subject of giving to God.

So that's where I'm at right now, with these things stuck like needles in my mind.  Would anyone like to offer your comments?

[dnr1128]

First off, I don't believe that all believers are priests in the same way that the Levitical priesthood was.  For example, all Israel was the chosen people of God by birthright through the faith of their common father Abraham.  It is into that root that we, the Gentiles, are grafted.  Within that group, a certain few were divinely selected to minister both to God in the Temple and to administer the sacrifices.  In the NT, the church follows a similar pattern;  we are all the children of God through both the root of our father Abraham, and by birthright, because we've been born into this thing.  In this group, there are some that are called to minister, both to God and to their brethren.  This doesn't make them any more holy (the OT priests were held to a higher standard than their brothers) or of any more worth to God, but it does mean that they have greater responsibility in the Kingdom. 

What is a priest?  A priest is a mediator between God and man.  Because in the OT the Jews could not directly approach the Glory of God to atone for themselves, they needed a man to go in for them and place the blood on the mercy seat.  In the NT, Jesus did just that;  He took His own blood and applied it to the mercy seat for us.  Since His blood was pure, it cleansed the record, not merely pushing back judgment.  Because of this, we all have access to God equally.    In the NT church, ministers are not mediators in the same sense that priests were in the OT;  their responsibility is not accomplishing salvation for the people, since that has already been done.  But, ministers do have the responsibility to minister in the Word, administrate the church, and lead the flock. 

I contend that the church in general is not the fulfillment of the OT priesthood;  it is the fulfillment of the plan of God for the nation of Israel to be a light to the world.  All children of God have the responsibility to be a light to their world, indeed even do the work of the ministry.  In that sense, all Christians are ministers or priests to the lost world around them, but some are particularly called to minister (serve) also to the Body. 

The main passage that is used to support this argument is I Peter 2:9, which states "...ye are a...royal priesthood..."  When taken in context, both from the beginning of the chapter, even just when finishing the verse, it is clear that the Apostle isn't talking about how we relate to each other, but how we "...show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light..."   Who are we doing that for?  The lost world around us.  We're not priests to each other, because we're all equally saved.  The only people that we're priests to is the unsaved.   

In regards to tithing to the ministers in a local assembly, it would seem that I Timothy 5:17-18 makes the point quite clearly.

I hope I make my argument in a clear and cogent manner.

[Raven180]

I haven't studied this out yet - I will - but if my memory serves me correctly, the priests were not required to pay tithes at all.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

OT Priests were required by the Law to tithe.

Numbers 18:25-32,

25. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
26. Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.
27. And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fulness of the winepress.
28. Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.
29. Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.
30. Therefore thou shalt say unto them, When ye have heaved the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshingfloor, and as the increase of the winepress.
31. And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households: for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation.
32. And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, when ye have heaved from it the best of it: neither shall ye pollute the holy things of the children of Israel, lest ye die. (emphasis added)

It can clearly be seen by this passage that the Levitical Priesthood clearly tithed on the tithes that they received from the children of Israel.

This tithe of the tithe was to be a heave offering made unto God, just like any other heave offering, whether of grain or of fruit/drink. In fact, according to v. 28, all of the tithes, and not just the tithe of the tithes was to be a heave offering to God. And afterward, it was to be given to the High Priest.

Notice verse 29 now calls these tithes, after they have been offered to God as heave offering, gifts, so long as what has been offered to God is the very best, i.e. the hallowed part of the tithes. At this point, when the tithes have become gifts, having been the best of the best or the creme de la creme, if you will, it now is redistributed back to the Levitical Priesthood as the increase, i.e. that which is the Levites by right of inheritance, so that they may eat and live (v.30).

It is their reward, God calls it. In fact, they shall bear no sin by it, if they have in fact offered the very best to God first.

Now, check this out. Hebrews 7:1-10,

1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Notice from v.3 that Melchisedec abides a priest continually, i.e. forever, just like Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:22-28). The writer then wants us to know how great Melchisedec truly is, that he is even greater than our father, Abraham (i.e. the less = Abraham is blessed of or by the better= Melchisedec, v. 7).

Then we see that the Levitical priesthood had a commandment to receive tithes from all the people (See Numbers 18:20-24). Then we read a little more about Melchisedec in v.6, indicating again that Melchisedec is greater than Abraham in that He received tithes from Abraham, and not only this, but that Melchisedec isn't even an ancestor of the Levites, signifying again how much greater He is, that He received tithes when He wasn't even a Levitical Priest.

Now notice v.8. The writer writes "here men that die receive tithes". Where is this "here"? Is it not here, on earth, in this life, as commanded by God in His Law? Then the writer writes "but there he receiveth them". meaning Melchisedec. Where is the "there" of this phrase? Is it not in the Heavenlies, where the High Priest of our faith ministers, ever living to make intercession for us, even as He saves to the uttermost those that come to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25-26)? Now notice that "receiveth tithes" is in present tense. This is not splitting hairs or a grammatical technicality. Melchisedec is still receiving tithes "there", i.e. in the Heavenlies, because He lives and abides forever as High Priest.

Then we see in v.9, in regards to the portion of your post that I quoted and began to address, that even Levitical Priests paid tithes. But not only did they pay tithes of the tithe of the children of Israel as it reads in Numbers 18, they also paid tithes in Abraham to Melchisedec when Abraham first met Melchisedec after the slaughter of the kings. The OT Priesthood paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham's loins, i.e. his DNA, if you will, before the tribe of Levi ever existed. And then, once Levi did exist as a tribe of priests, they again were commanded to pay tithes of the tithe as a heave offering to YHWH.

But why?

(continued...)

[Raven180]

Typology.

Just as the Levites were in the "loins of Abraham" physically, i.e. in his DNA through his seed/sperm, so too are we in the "loins of Abraham", i.e. his seed/sperm spirtually. Now, don't take this the wrong way. But in Galatians 3 when it reads we are the "seed of Abraham" who have been baptized into Christ, the Greek word of "seed" is "sperma", where we get our modern day medical term. The Levites paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham when Abraham tithed to Him, and they also paid tithes to YHWH when they tithed to God. This they did continually, even though Abraham only tithed once to Melchisedec.

And, in that we are the seed of Abraham, we pay tithes (present tense) to Him Who receiveth tithes (present tense) in the Heavenlies, because He has an unchangeable priesthood that abideth forever. When we tithe to Melchisedec, we also are tithing to YHWH, because as Hebrews 7:28 reads, Jesus Christ, our Melchisedec is the Son, i.e. YHWH manifest in the flesh (See 1 Timothy 3:16).

So just as the Levites paid tithes once to Melchisedec and then also daily and/or continually to YHWH, so too do we pay tithes to Melchisedec once at salvation and to YHWH daily and/or continually. (The one time tithe, I submit, is in the idea that all we have belongs to Jesus. When we were saved, we offered it to Him, even as Abraham made a one-time offering to Melchisedec, because we came to God through Him/Jesus, like Hebrews 7:25 reads.)

Now, notice the good part. After the tithes are offered to YHWH, according to Numbers 18:28-29, if they are the best of the best, meaning the firstfruits of all the tithes, i.e. the substance of the entire nation of Israel, they become hallowed gifts that get to be shared amongst all the priests who minister in the Tabernacle. And because they have and share these "gifts" amongst themselves, they bear no sin, because these gifts hallowed the priesthood to God, even when otherwise, it was the responsibility of the priests to "bear their [i.e. the children of Israel's] iniquity (Numbers 18:23). The tithe of the tithe, when offered to God as the best of the best, sanctified the priesthood and kept them pure from the sins of the people, even as they bore the sins of the people upon themselves to God as they ministered in the Tabernacle.

See at last the final typology:

After our tithes are offered to YHWH, if they are our very best, meaning our firstfruits, out of the entire substance of the Church (See Proverbs 3:9), they become hallowed "heave offerings" or gifts to God. They can then be shared by the entire New Testament Royal Priesthood amongst themselves, or others as needed, as we the Church minister in the Tabernacle of David, which was fallen, but is now raised up gloriously in power and splendor (See Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11, and Acts 15:14-17). And because we have and share these gifts (i.e. the tithes in the Church), we bear no sin, because these gifts hallow the New Testament Priesthood of Believers to God.

Now we know why in the New Testament, the Epistles so heavily emphasize giving and why it calls monetary offerings "gifts" (See 2 Corinthians 8, especially v. 4). It is because these New Testament "gifts" came from the firstfruits and substance of the Church. They (the tithes) were offered to Melchisedec/Jesus by the seed of Abraham, (namely us) even to YHWH, as a type of "heave offering". Once offered, they became hallowed gifts to be shared amongst the Church/churches, just as the tithe of the tithe was to be shared amongst all the priests. These financial gifts bless the entire Church and help to minister to many needs throughout the whole world. This is why a person that does not give is severly frowned upon in the Church by the Word of God. Stinginess and being a miser demonstrates the root of a person's heart: the love of money. Instead of blessing the whole church and sharing their finances with everyone, they want to keep all that they have to themselves. God is not into that kind of attitude. Consider Ananias and Sapphira, whom God slew for lying to the Holy Ghost when they wouldn't share their financial firstfruits with the Church.

Remember: the Apostles and the Believers had all things in common. All they had, i.e. their substance, was offered to God as firstfruits, and they shared equally to those who had need, whether it be a fellow saint, or the Grecian widows (See Acts 2:44--47, 4:34-37, and 6:1-7).

This is the blessing of the tithe. It rewards the Church, even as it hallows Her. It's not to be abused and horded by a select few, but for all members of the Body of Christ to receive equally as needed.

In fact, the tithes that become gifts of blessing to the Church are so important, that when an offering was collected for the "poor saints at Jerusalem" Paul said he would be "ministering to them" when he delivered the gift that Macedonia contributed to the Church in Jerusalem (See again 2 Corinthians 8:1-4 and also Romans 15:25-28). The Macedonians begged and pleaded with Paul to take their gift, entreating Paul and his team to take upon themselves the "fellowship of the ministering to the saints".

Let us be entreated to do the same. Let us tithe to our Melchisedec, i.e. Jesus Christ, YHWH manifest in the flesh, so that our gifts can become a ministry that blesses God's saints everywhere.

In Jesus' Name, Amen.

Peace and God bless,

Aaron

[titushome]

First off, I don't believe that all believers are priests in the same way that the Levitical priesthood was....

I contend that the church in general is not the fulfillment of the OT priesthood;  it is the fulfillment of the plan of God for the nation of Israel to be a light to the world....

The main passage that is used to support this argument is I Peter 2:9, which states "...ye are a...royal priesthood..."

Well, there's also this:

3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--
6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

And this:

7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.
8 When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

And this:

6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there's more to our role as priests than ministering to those not living in God.  I don't know exactly what; I'm still studying that.  Do you have any comments in addition to those you already made?  Thanks.

In regards to tithing to the ministers in a local assembly, it would seem that I Timothy 5:17-18 makes the point quite clearly.

17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

The New Living Translation says "Elders who do their work well should be paid well."  The Holman Christian Standard Bible says "The elders who are good leaders should be considered worthy of an ample honorarium."  The Good News Translation says "The elders who do good work as leaders should be considered worthy of receiving double pay."  But all the other translations and versions I've checked use the term "double honor" or something very similar.  Frank Viola wrote this about "double honor":

Pagan Christianity[/i], pp. 184-185, 2008 Barna]
...what does "double honor" mean?  Does it mean a clergy salary, an honorarium, or simply greater respect?

First, the specific Greek words that the New Testament uses for pay or wages are not used in this text.  Rather, the Greek word for honor in this passage means to respect or value someone or something.  The same word is used four times in 1 Timothy.  In every case, it means respect.

Second, all Christians are called to honor one another (Romans 12:10).  It would be absurd to take this to mean that all believers are to receive payment from one another.  Again, those elders who serve well are to receive more honor - or greater respect.

Third, the fact that respect is what Paul had in mind is borne out by verse 19.  Paul goes on to say that the elders are not to be accused (dishonored) unless there are two or three witnesses to confirm an accusation.

Granted, double honor may have included free-will offerings as a token of blessing from time to time (Galatians 6:6).  But this was not the dominating thought.  Scripture tells us elders deserve honor (respect), not a salary.

Consequently, 1 Timothy 5 is perfectly consistent with Paul's words to the elders recorded in Acts 20:33-35.  There he told the elders in Ephesus that the did not take money from God's people but instead supplied his own needs.  Paul then told the elders to follow his example in this.  That passage alone argues against the idea of a hired clergy or a paid pastoral staff.

[titushome]

Raven, thanks for all you wrote - really good stuff!  You've given me a lot to think about.

Now, notice the good part. After the tithes are offered to YHWH, according to Numbers 18:28-29, if they are the best of the best, meaning the firstfruits of all the tithes, i.e. the substance of the entire nation of Israel, they become hallowed gifts that get to be shared amongst all the priests who minister in the Tabernacle. And because they have and share these "gifts" amongst themselves, they bear no sin, because these gifts hallowed the priesthood to God, even when otherwise, it was the responsibility of the priests to "bear their [i.e. the children of Israel's] iniquity (Numbers 18:23). The tithe of the tithe, when offered to God as the best of the best, sanctified the priesthood and kept them pure from the sins of the people, even as they bore the sins of the people upon themselves to God as they ministered in the Tabernacle.

See at last the final typology:

After our tithes are offered to YHWH, if they are our very best, meaning our firstfruits, out of the entire substance of the Church (See Proverbs 3:9), they become hallowed "heave offerings" or gifts to God. They can then be shared by the entire New Testament Royal Priesthood amongst themselves, or others as needed, as we the Church minister in the Tabernacle of David, which was fallen, but is now raised up gloriously in power and splendor (See Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11, and Acts 15:14-17). And because we have and share these gifts (i.e. the tithes in the Church), we bear no sin, because these gifts hallow the New Testament Priesthood of Believers to God.

Now we know why in the New Testament, the Epistles so heavily emphasize giving and why it calls monetary offerings "gifts" (See 2 Corinthians 8, especially v. 4). It is because these New Testament "gifts" came from the firstfruits and substance of the Church. They (the tithes) were offered to Melchisedec/Jesus by the seed of Abraham, (namely us) even to YHWH, as a type of "heave offering". Once offered, they became hallowed gifts to be shared amongst the Church/churches, just as the tithe of the tithe was to be shared amongst all the priests. These financial gifts bless the entire Church and help to minister to many needs throughout the whole world.

Reading (perhaps) a bit between the lines, it seems as though you are arguing against paying tithes to clergy; rather, they ought be used by the whole Church to do the work of the Church.  Am I reading you correctly?

[Raven180]

Reading (perhaps) a bit between the lines, it seems as though you are arguing against paying tithes to clergy; rather, they ought be used by the whole Church to do the work of the Church.  Am I reading you correctly?

Well, if I am reading and rightly dividing Scripture correctly, then I would say, yes, you are reading me correctly.

Consider this passage.

Deuteronomy 14:22-29,

22. Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
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.
24. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
25. Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
26. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
27. And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
28. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
29. And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (Emphasis added)

This passage contains a direct command from God for the person that tithes to take their own tithe and use it for themselves to eat and drink, with their own household, whilst also sharing it with the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.

It seems very clear. Especially when the parts above are bolded out.

If you look at verse 23 like this:

23. thou shalt eat... the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks...

which is the natural understanding and flow of the sentence, it becomes even clearer. Now, I am not recommending a taking away from God's Word; however the ellipses help to show what is the truly ideal meaning.

Imagine it this way. You are a farmer in Israel sometime after the conquest of Canaan. The land has been allotted to all the tribes. The Levites have no possession, but they do live within various towns and cities. Also, strangers, i.e. uncovenanted people live within the borders of Israel. Maybe they are descendents of the Gibeonites? Who can say? And there are also widows and orphans that live within Israel, all throughout each tribe and province.

God commands you to take the tithe of your farm, and bring it to wheresoever He decides to place His Name, for it (The Name) to be worshipped. We know that God chooses Jerusalem, where His temple is built (See 1 Kings 9:3). Then God commands from out of the Law, that this tithe you've harvested/collected throughout the year, is for you and for your family to eat, so long as you bring it to Jerusalem and honor God with your obedience to His command. It is for you and your family to eat for this purpose:

...that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

Collecting, sharing, and personally partaking of God's tithe is designed with the purpose of teaching us to fear YHWH our God always, or at all times. Now, then, imagine that you've had an incredibly good year (i.e. the blessing of God that v.24 mentions) and you cannot possibly take and carry all of the tithe with you, as is. Too many animals to herd and march over rough terrain toward Jerusalem. Maybe you don't own enough wagons to bring all the grain? Who knows? All you do know is that God permits you, from His Law, to sell the actual items of the tithe, i.e. the grains, the wine, the animals, etc. and bring the money received to Jerusalem, as the tithe. And do what with it? Verse 26 instructs you:

26. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household...

Now, don't take that word "lusteth" the wrong way. It simply means to wish or long for. No sinfulness implied. So, with your tithe money in hand, you go to Jerusalem, the place where God's Name is worshipped, and you buy whatever food and drink you want, for you and your family. And you eat and drink and rejoice, fearing God always. (My guess is that all of this occurs on God's ordained feasts: Passover and Firstfruits, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, since the former and latter rain gives a harvest twice a year in Israel, which must then be tithed on throughout that selfsame year.)

And all of this is acceptable based on one condition:

You don't forget the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, or the widow. If you share your tithe money, or the regular tithe of grain, wine, and animals, with those who have not, i.e. those who are not financially able to support themselves (Levite, et al) you do well and it is acceptable to God. It is when the Levite and others are forgotten, and all the tithe is used on self---essentially it's no longer a tithe, just personal increase used selfishly---that the Commandment is disobeyed and God is dishonored.

Now then, how does this fit with New Testament typology, especially in terms of what I posted before?

(continued...)

[Raven180]

Ephesians 3:14-15,

14. ...I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named...

Here we see who our family is: God's people, His Church, which is called by His Name, or said more accurately, over whom His Name is invoked. This is well established throughout the New Testament, especially in the Epistles. In various places, we are called brothers or members of each other,etc. We are told that we are all baptized into the same Body by One Spirit, to become One with each other, etc. We could fill up this post with instances from Scripture that prove we are family.

Now then, back to the tithe and its typology.

Didn't Deuteronomy say this:

26. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household...

"All thine household". Galatians 6:10 calls us the household of faith and Ephesians 2:19 calls us the household of God. We are His children. We are God's family. And the tithe is to be used and shared accordingly with our family in the place where God's Holy Name is worshipped: the Temple, i.e. the Church. For all of us to eat and drink and rejoice and fear/reverence God at all times, so long as we "remember the poor" as Peter, James, and John might say (See Galatians 2:9,10), i.e those who have not and cannot financially supports themselves. Hence, this is why pure, undefiled religion before God the Father is to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction (and also to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, James 1:27).

Jame also wrote that if we see a brother or sister naked and destitute of daily food, that if we don't provide for them, our faith is vain and dead, not having works which establish the Law (James 2:14-18 and Romans 3:31).

John wrote and said that if we see a brother have a need and we "shut our bowels of compassion" toward him, the love of God doesn't truly dwell within us. Therefore John exhorted that we love, not in word or tongue, but rather in deed and truth. In fact, it is by doing this, that we are able to assure our hearts before God that we are of the Truth (1 John 3:17-19).

Since these things are so, these two passages, then, beg the question: Who is our brother? From the parable of the Good Samaritan, we know everyone is our brother.

This is what the purpose of the tithe is: that God's storehouse be full for times of rejoicing and celebration as we, His Household, worship His Name and Fear Him forever, and for the provision of those that cannot provide for themselves, to show that God is loving and full of mercy. As He feeds the ravens, so He feeds His people. The tithe, when offered to God and His Christ, Who is made a High Priest after the Order of Melchisedec forever, is for all to share.

So then, if we all who are the habitation of God through the Spirit share in and partake of the tithe, how do we do so?

(continued...)

[Raven180]

The answer is:

Feasts of Charity, sometimes called Love Feasts, i.e. Communion. Today, we simply call these (Church) Services.

Think about it.

If the tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and be used for eating and drinking and rejoicing, then what better way for the New Testament Church to fufill God's purpose than to eat, drink, and rejoice at the Lord's Supper? Are we not God's New Jerusalem, where He has placed His Name forever?

Notice something very interesting in 1 Corinthians 11. What does Paul condemn them for? Not waiting for one another to share the meal together, therefore leaving some to be hungry if they come late, meaning that they do not get to partake of the Feast of Charity because some people horded it to themselves while others got drunk. Paul exclaims that if a person arrives and they are hungry at first, to eat at home. This will likely help them not to gourge and horde for themselves what is supposed to be shared for all.

Paul had no praise in his heart for this type of behavior. In fact, he showed how that a lot of people in the Corinthian Church were sick and weakly, or in fact had died, simply for not discerning the Lord's Body, both the bread and wine, and also God's People. That this type of behavior even leads to damnation.

So, what's the big deal behind all of this? It's selfishness. It suggest exclusion of certain members of God's people (namely the poor), who don't get to participate in the worship of remembering Christ's death until He comes.

But what does this have to do with tithing?

Everything.

First, what did Melchisedec offer to Abraham when Abraham tithed to Melchisedec? Bread and Wine. Clearly a type and shadow of the Last Supper and the offering of Christ's Body and Blood. Linking this to the idea that we tithe to Jesus Christ, our Melchisedec, and that our tithe is for the entire Church to share, it shows that this level of selfish gluttony is an abuse of the tithing system God created for His people.

Think about it: How does the Church have the financial capital to supply everyone a portion of the Lord's Supper? How does a Church have a Love Feast, which today we call a Church Service/Fellowship? The Tithes, which is usually nowadays just called Offerings. (In fact, the administration and operation of an entire local congregation is more often than not fully self-supported financially by its tithes and offerings. So, it's not just the very specific idea of what we think of as Communion, i.e. literal breaking of bread and sharing of the cup. Rather, it's the complete Church system which God created that functions financially through what God's people put into it through their gain/increase.)

In ancient times, and in some parts of the world today, farmers and gardeners bring their foodstuff as tithes, and it gets shared amongst the whole congregation. Others bring their money as a tithe and it gets shared amongst the whole congregation as well. All for the purpose of eating and drinking and rejoicing and showing the Lord's death until He comes. This of course, is an act of worship that shows that we fear and revere God.

So then, if a person hordes and eats up all that the Church received in tithes, which is supposed to be shared for all Royal Priests in celebration and fellowship, as it appeared to have been happening in Corinth, then what is really happening is that such a person is dishonoring their Melchisedec, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

We are the Seed of Abraham and all of His blessings and promises are ours to inherit. Abraham received Bread and Wine from Melchisedec. We, too received Bread and Wine from Melchisedec when Christ' Body was broken and His blood was shed for the remission of our sins. This salvation is for everyone. This typology is designed to be experienced by everyone. Everyone in the Church should be able to receive the Bread and Wine. The Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper is supplied by the tithes. If those tithes only go for just a select few, then the rest of God's family is being denied their right to eat, drink, and rejoice and feed themselves as Deuteronomy states. (Remember, God's Priests were hallowed and sanctified by the tithes so that they didn't bear the sins of the people for whom they ministered in the Tabernacle. What does this say about us today?)

So, then, who are the ones who are sick and weakly and die in the Church before their time? Those that don't share. They don't give. They are selfish and horde everything to themselves. Dare I say, the ones who are sickly and weak are the ones that expect to be fed but never themselves give to the tithes in order to help feed their own brothers and sisters.

It makes perfect typological sense.They are abusing God's ordained system for the Church to be able to financially support itself so that all can partake in God's blessing, fellowship, and communion. To exclude someone from a Love Feast and to let them go hungry is a great shame on a church. These things of course, also have powerful, spiritual ramifications. That which is exhibited by God in the natural usually has a spiritual application.

Weak and sickly possibly also refers to someone's spiritual condition. Eating and drinking may not just be physical. It may also be the spiritual idea of eating the Bread of Life and drinking the Living Waters. There is no greater proof of where a Christian's real heart is than with their wallet and their bank account.

Find a miser that won't give, that refuses to share with the Church that which God has blessed them with, and you'll find the root of all evil at their core.

So, no, Titus, I don't believe that the tithes are for clergy only. I see no passage, unless twisted or misunderstood, that suggests that a select few "Lords over God's heritage" are to be the only partakers of God's tithe. I don't think that it fits with Scripture, nor with the typology that Scripture gives to us in God's Holy Word.



PS. This doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have a financial obligation to it's ministry. Paul made it clear that he had authority to issue demands for finanical assistance from the church. (See 1 Corinthians 9:6-18) However, he made a choice to work with his own hands and fully provide financially for himself and his team, to leave us an example. However, this is a completey different issue and should perhaps be addressed in a different post???

[doogie]

Mal 3:10
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Can someone please show me where in the preceding scripture anyone is given license to "distribute" their tithe prior to bringing it into the storehouse? 

Tithing AND offerings were established by God as a way of supporting the ministry.  Alms, feeding the hungry, etc. are all things we do above and beyond our "tithes and offerings."

Shalom.     

[Raven180]

Mal 3:10
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Can someone please show me where in the preceding scripture anyone is given license to "distribute" their tithe prior to bringing it into the storehouse? 

Tithing AND offerings were established by God as a way of supporting the ministry.  Alms, feeding the hungry, etc. are all things we do above and beyond our "tithes and offerings."

Shalom.     

Well, in terms of the original OT context of Malachi, we know God's temple (the "mine house" referred to in the verse you posted) had a real storehouse that held the tithes of the people and the priesthood.

However, if we take that verse and apply it in a New Testament context (which is fine by me) then we must ask, what is God's storehouse, in God's House?

Well, the "mine house" of this verse, in a NT context is certainly the Church, i.e. the called-out ones, the People of God.

What then is the storehouse? I would submit that the storehouse is whatever financial depository the church uses for it's tithes and offerings, whether it be a bank account, a church safe, or under a mattress. It can also be, I suppose, whatever financial investments the church pours into itself collectively to to fulfill the Great Commission and to help perpetuate God's Kingdom locally and abroad (i.e. purchasing Bibles, tracts, and other literature, conducting outreaches, funding missionaries both home and foreign, etc.)

We see then, too, that the main purpose of the passage you shared is so that there will be "meat" in God's house. The financial, tithing and offering obligation that God instituted was designed for the storing of foodstuff, for the priest, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, as shown in previous posts and quoted below from Scripture:

Deuteronomy 14:28-29,

28. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
29. And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (emphasis added)

So, to take Malachi into the NT, (and this passage from Deuteronomy as well since we must be fair and consistent, right?), shows that "the meat" in the storehouse of God's house, which today is usually not actually food items but rather financial capital (which God allowed for in the OT, too) is the means for all God's people to feed and support themselves, along with the strangers, the widows, and the orphans that are in our "gates", i.e. our cities and locales.

Alms, feeding the hungry, etc. are all things we do above and beyond our "tithes and offerings."

Mark 7:8-13

8. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The idea of "corban" is a consecrated present/offering to the Temple Fund. More specifically, it refers to the treasury of the temple itself. It comes from the Hebrew word "qurban", which is a sacrificial present or offering. Qurban comes from a root meaning to approach or come near, i.e. the act of approaching God to make an offering (with many other meanings, as well).

Luke's parallel passage reads this way:

Luke 11:41-42,

41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
42. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Here, Jesus is showing us that the idea of tithing without giving heed to judgment and loving God and doing the things related to that is unacceptable.

And Matthew's parallel passage reads this way:

Matthew 23:14-23,

14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18. And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20. Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

So what is the main thrust of Christ's chastisement of the Pharisees in these passages?

That is was more important to the Pharisees to make an offering that they considered consecrated (Corban) to the temple than financially assisting their parents when they were in need, even when the law forbid such things (i.e. cursing father and mother). That the Pharisees cared more about tithing on small, miniscule things than they did about judgment (which is usually linked with widows, orphans, and the poor in the OT) and the love of God, which is loving and taking care of people (cf. Mark 12:29-32). That the Pharisees thought the gifts on the altar and the gold given to the storehouse of the temple were more sacred than the altar and the temple themselves. And that instead of keeping the more important parts of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith, they actually devoured widows houses, meaning that they financially ruined widows because it was more important to them to make a show of offering, when it was more important to God that they take care of the widows, et al.

So to think that from God's perspective that taking care of widows, orphans and strangers come last in a list, after tithing and offering to God, is not true. Jesus makes it clear that taking care of the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, and even your own mom and dad are first on God's list, along with judgment, love of God, mercy, and faith, and that tithing and offering otherwise, i.e. on the mint, etc. comes second, but should also not "be undone".

Peace,

Aaron

Edit: Bolded items regarding the church's financial depository or storehouse were added as a post-edit.

Aaron

[doogie]

Tithing is in fact an act of obedience to God, not charity.  God established tithing as a means to fund the ministry, who then shared the excess with the needy.  The fact that we no longer offer up sacrifices and hand out steaks does not preclude the need for the tithe in the NT church.  Nor does tithing preclude us from taking care of the needy.  That having been said, he also proclaimed "Obedience is better than sacrifice..."

The fact that the pharisees failed to take care of the needy IN ADDITION  to bringing their tithe to the storehouse does not negate the necessity of tithing as an act of obedience to God.  Anything less that 10% is not a tithe, so again, I dont see how a person can "tithe" if they dont bring all of the 10% to their pastor.

I have observed that those who dont believe in the tithe usually dont believe in church buildings either...

[Raven180]

Tithing is in fact an act of obedience to God, not charity.

True. I believe it 100%. Note, too, however that obedience is "charity" in the truest sense of the word.

Jesus said, "If you agape me, keep [i.e. obey] my commandments." Charity, as it is used in 1 Corinthians 13, for example, is from the Greek word agape. So one could argue that obeying God by tithing is charity as well, just as performing charitable acts demonstrates obedience to God regarding alms.

God established tithing as a means to fund the ministry, who then shared the excess with the needy.

So the ministry (usually meant as the people, i.e. pastors/shepherds who perform the ministry) comes first and the rest of the Body gets the leftovers?

By implication then, after all the financial needs or wants of the individual minister are met, then whoever else has a financial need can get in line for a handout? God is no respector of persons. It cannot be argued that any one member of the church has a more important financial need than anyone else. We all need food, shelter, clothing, etc. So why would a select few get first pick on the firstfruits so all their needs are met, and then everyone else can scramble for the crumbs? It doesn't seem equal. It's not love. Read Ezekiel 34 for further considerations.

The fact that we no longer offer up sacrifices and hand out steaks does not preclude the need for the tithe in the NT church.

I agree.

Nor does tithing preclude us from taking care of the needy.

I submit the idea that the tithe, when put into its proper typological and literal setting and context, is actually the means by which "the needy" receive financial assistance and care. See my above posts for this reasonining.
 

That having been said, he also proclaimed "Obedience is better than sacrifice..."

Then there is an impasse, because what you seem to be suggesting then is it is better to obey the law of the tithe in order to (potentially) sacrifice the poor. Is this what you are suggesting by bringing up "obedience is better than sacrifice"?

The fact that the pharisees failed to take care of the needy IN ADDITION  to bringing their tithe to the storehouse does not negate the necessity of tithing as an act of obedience to God.

Totally agree.

Anything less that 10% is not a tithe

Also totally agree.

I dont see how a person can "tithe" if they dont bring all of the 10% to their pastor.

We don't bring our tithe to the pastor, or any person for that matter. We bring our tithe to Jesus Christ, Who is after the order of Melchisedec.

Secondly, if the entirety of the tithe goes directly to the pastor as a form of salary, automatically guaranteed by Scripture, no matter the size of the church membership, as you seem to be suggesting, then what of the larger churches?

Consider:

A church of 300 members that, according to 2003 stats regarding per capita income for the U.S.A., would each make, on average, $37,500 per household per year. If all members tithe faithfully each year, the pastor is going to receive a salary of $1,250,000.

Even if you cut this into quarters, the pastor automatically becomes the richest person in the church by default. Each member then obviously deducts $3,750 from off of their income, bringing the member average to $33,750.

Is the intention of the tithe really to makes individual members of the Body richer than anyone else in the church, only for the poor, the orphans, and the widows to come second (or God forbid, not at all) in seeing their financial needs being met?

This seems to be what I see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for: making ruin of widows households, neglecting parental care, and caring more about gold and money than about people and their salvation (i.e. the temple and the altar symbolizing such).

It seems that what I described above, using Scripture, is a much more appropriate use of God's tithe.

[doogie]

Admittedly, I made a few assumptions and left a few things out when posting previously.  Let me try this again, and see where we stand:

1.  When you bring your tithe to the church you attend, it is done as an act of obedience to God.  You are in essence bringing your tithe to God, not your pastor.  I simply mentioned the Pastor because he is the "chief executive" of the local church assembly.  I did not mean to infer by this that he is entitled to take the money and keep it, or do  as he pleases.  Rather, as an instrument of God's will, he is to use the tithes to support the ministry of the church - some of which may be his salary.  Just want to be clear that I am not advocating that the "ministry" abscond with the money that God is expecting to be used for ministry (ministry being defined by the dictates of scripture - which may well entail but not be limited to feeding the hungry, assisting members during times of financial need, etc.).

2.  I do not deny the dictates of scripture that implore us to feed the poor, etc. (for sake of time, I'm not elaborating on all the areas where the needy, widows, etc. could be helped,  but you get the gist).  That having been said, for sake of maintaining the integrity of the tithe, I firmly believe that it should be adiminstered by the leadership of the local assembly where a Christian worships.  While this is my conviction, I believe that it is soundly supported by scripture:  I would not feel comfortable giving a percentage of my tithe to a beggar beside the freeway;  I would however feel comfortable giving generously to the needy from my personal resources as I feel led of the spirit (with all humility intended by revealing it, this is something I practice regularly in my life).  I base this on the written dictates of sripture rather than the extrapolative interpretation that may be applied to the NT (as illustrated in your example of NT believers being the Tabernacle of God, etc.).

3.  It has been my casual observation that most Christians who do not pay tithes do not give to the poor either.  Or, if they do, it is nowhere near 10% of their salary.  Of course this does not apply to all non-tithers, but I would bet dollars to donuts that it applies to a large majority. 

This all having been said, I believe that this area of a Christian's life must be considered with all gravity and humility.  It should be understood that most churches require tithing as a tenet of membership - and from that perspective, one must consider the ramifications of ceasing to tithe.  In any case, one should confer with their pastor before making any hasty decisions in this matter.

Personally, I choose to live in the reality that the more I give, the more I receive.

Shalom.

[Raven180]

Admittedly, I made a few assumptions and left a few things out when posting previously.  Let me try this again, and see where we stand:

1.  When you bring your tithe to the church you attend, it is done as an act of obedience to God.  You are in essence bringing your tithe to God, not your pastor.  I simply mentioned the Pastor because he is the "chief executive" of the local church assembly.  I did not mean to infer by this that he is entitled to take the money and keep it, or do  as he pleases.  Rather, as an instrument of God's will, he is to use the tithes to support the ministry of the church - some of which may be his salary.  Just want to be clear that I am not advocating that the "ministry" abscond with the money that God is expecting to be used for ministry (ministry being defined by the dictates of scripture - which may well entail but not be limited to feeding the hungry, assisting members during times of financial need, etc.).

2.  I do not deny the dictates of scripture that implore us to feed the poor, etc. (for sake of time, I'm not elaborating on all the areas where the needy, widows, etc. could be helped,  but you get the gist).  That having been said, for sake of maintaining the integrity of the tithe, I firmly believe that it should be adiminstered by the leadership of the local assembly where a Christian worships.  While this is my conviction, I believe that it is soundly supported by scripture:  I would not feel comfortable giving a percentage of my tithe to a beggar beside the freeway;  I would however feel comfortable giving generously to the needy from my personal resources as I feel led of the spirit (with all humility intended by revealing it, this is something I practice regularly in my life).  I base this on the written dictates of sripture rather than the extrapolative interpretation that may be applied to the NT (as illustrated in your example of NT believers being the Tabernacle of God, etc.).

3.  It has been my casual observation that most Christians who do not pay tithes do not give to the poor either.  Or, if they do, it is nowhere near 10% of their salary.  Of course this does not apply to all non-tithers, but I would bet dollars to donuts that it applies to a large majority. 

This all having been said, I believe that this area of a Christian's life must be considered with all gravity and humility.  It should be understood that most churches require tithing as a tenet of membership - and from that perspective, one must consider the ramifications of ceasing to tithe.  In any case, one should confer with their pastor before making any hasty decisions in this matter.

Personally, I choose to live in the reality that the more I give, the more I receive.

Shalom.

I am in complete harmony with almost all of your sentiments. Thanks for clarifying. The posts I've made above have been made within the context of what you are describing, i.e. tithes paid to God, administered by pastoral leadership for support of ministry and church at the local level, where the Christian worships.

The only thing I do not agree with is:

"...the extrapolative interpretation that may be applied to the NT... as illustrated in your example of NT believers being the Tabernacle of God..."

I don't think that it is extrapolated interpretation to say that NT believers are the Tabernacle of God any more than it is to say that NT believers are the Temple of God. I think that is very clearly substantiated in the NT.

Consider, for example Revelation 21:3.

For me, tabernacle and temple are interchangeable terms. Peter even called his own body, which is a lively stone in the temple of God, a tabernacle. In fact, the Greek word that Peter used is skenoma which, meaning a booth or tent, is used of the Temple of God's dwelling, and also, metaphorically, of the human body, i.e. the context in which Peter used the word. This word comes from skene which is the Greek word in the NT that denotes the physical tabernacle of the OT, the tabernacles that Peter wanted to make for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, the Temple in Jerusalem, the house (i.e. tabernacle) of David as described by James in Acts 15, and also the heavenly tabernacle, i.e. the glorified bodies of Christ's saints.

So, again, I reiterate that I don't think it's an extrapolative interpretation to say that we are the Tabernacle of God. Rather, it seems to be made pretty clear.

But otherwise, again, I agree with everything you wrote.

Peace,

Aaron

[doogie]

An interesting thought on this subject is this:

We can debate hypothetical scenarios on this forum all day long, but the fact is that regardless of where a "church" meets, there are utilities, rents, maintenence issues and such that have to be paid for.  It is absurd to imply that we live in a vacuum and that every church can find a place to worship that is free from the constraints of these capital costs.  I realize that there are some "situations" where a group is offered free rent, utilities, etc., but this is not the norm.  If a person attends a church group that is in a building, it is absolutely essential that they pay their tithes to assist in the upkeep of that ministry.  To make a point, in the city where I attend church, our property is considered "commercial."  As such, we are taxed for stormwater runoff.  This month, our water bill is $800.  Who's going to pay that?  I will tell you who, the faithful tithepayers of our church who month after month, week after week honor God with their tithe.  Those who suggest church buildings are wrong and that we should meet in the park so the tithe can be used to feed the poor are living in fantasyland. 

I would guess that some who post here against tithing have no problem attending their local church and enjoying the benefits of that facility.  If so, they need to pony up, pay their required tithe and stop freeloading!

Glad I got that off my chest...

[titushome]

We can debate hypothetical scenarios on this forum all day long, but the fact is that regardless of where a "church" meets, there are utilities, rents, maintenence issues and such that have to be paid for.  It is absurd to imply that we live in a vacuum and that every church can find a place to worship that is free from the constraints of these capital costs.  I realize that there are some "situations" where a group is offered free rent, utilities, etc., but this is not the norm.

Actually, there is one scenario that is more than hypothetical, and is free of utilities, rents and maintenance issue: that scenario is where churches meet in homes.  These expenses are not paid by the church because they're already taken care of by the homeowner.  The only restraint in this scenario is on the size of the group that meets: an average living/dining room layout could probably hold 10-20 people comfortably, necessitating numerous smaller meetings instead of one large one.

[onli-one-jehovi]

We can debate hypothetical scenarios on this forum all day long, but the fact is that regardless of where a "church" meets, there are utilities, rents, maintenence issues and such that have to be paid for.  It is absurd to imply that we live in a vacuum and that every church can find a place to worship that is free from the constraints of these capital costs.  I realize that there are some "situations" where a group is offered free rent, utilities, etc., but this is not the norm.

Actually, there is one scenario that is more than hypothetical, and is free of utilities, rents and maintenance issue: that scenario is where churches meet in homes.  These expenses are not paid by the church because they're already taken care of by the homeowner.  The only restraint in this scenario is on the size of the group that meets: an average living/dining room layout could probably hold 10-20 people comfortably, necessitating numerous smaller meetings instead of one large one.

There are also some saints who may own business property large enough to handle more than a small group. This could also be accessed free to the congregation.

The "fantasyland" really exists among members of the Body who insist "church" is a building ordained of God.

Sidenote: Ever notice how tithes are always paid and not given?  Wonder why that is? 

[doogie]

We can debate hypothetical scenarios on this forum all day long, but the fact is that regardless of where a "church" meets, there are utilities, rents, maintenence issues and such that have to be paid for.  It is absurd to imply that we live in a vacuum and that every church can find a place to worship that is free from the constraints of these capital costs.  I realize that there are some "situations" where a group is offered free rent, utilities, etc., but this is not the norm.

Actually, there is one scenario that is more than hypothetical, and is free of utilities, rents and maintenance issue: that scenario is where churches meet in homes.  These expenses are not paid by the church because they're already taken care of by the homeowner.  The only restraint in this scenario is on the size of the group that meets: an average living/dining room layout could probably hold 10-20 people comfortably, necessitating numerous smaller meetings instead of one large one.

Certainly home churches are an option.  As most "home church" meetings experience growth, the numbers eventually reach a point where a larger facility is necessitated, or the "members" decide they would be more comfortable in a less distracting environment than someone's home.

I suppose it depends on the situation.  If there is already a church building in the area that is continuing in the Apostles Doctrine, I would think that Christians would band together and support the work of that particular church.

[doogie]

We can debate hypothetical scenarios on this forum all day long, but the fact is that regardless of where a "church" meets, there are utilities, rents, maintenence issues and such that have to be paid for.  It is absurd to imply that we live in a vacuum and that every church can find a place to worship that is free from the constraints of these capital costs.  I realize that there are some "situations" where a group is offered free rent, utilities, etc., but this is not the norm.

Actually, there is one scenario that is more than hypothetical, and is free of utilities, rents and maintenance issue: that scenario is where churches meet in homes.  These expenses are not paid by the church because they're already taken care of by the homeowner.  The only restraint in this scenario is on the size of the group that meets: an average living/dining room layout could probably hold 10-20 people comfortably, necessitating numerous smaller meetings instead of one large one.

There are also some saints who may own business property large enough to handle more than a small group. This could also be accessed free to the congregation.

The "fantasyland" really exists among members of the Body who insist "church" is a building ordained of God.

Sidenote: Ever notice how tithes are always paid and not given?  Wonder why that is? 

So Jerry, do you attend a church building?

I am not so sure that anyone is advocating that a church building is "ordained of God."  I do know that the particular "church" I attend is blessed with one.

My point was to simply illustrate that there are certainly some rare instances where the use of a space is free of cost.  However, it is not always the case. 

I would suggest that a large number of churches are started in homes, then grow to a point where a building is needed.  In some instances, there are mature enough saints to split the group off and start another fressh group, or even add additonal home services utilizing a schedule that allows different members to attend on different days, or times.  In a lot of cases however, where growth occurs quickly, it is just not scripturally acceptable or prudent to put a novice in the seat of "elder" and split the group off.  As such, the "Elder" locates a larger facility to house the meeting, and arrangements are made to conduct services.  Over time, groups get tired of setting up equipment, chairs and such every time service is held, so they buy a building of their own to use.  This is a natural progression, and there is ZERO scripture to condemn such practices.

[Kloey]

The concept of tithing is simple.  God has always blessed me bountifully, in one way or another.  It seems only natural to give back to His kingdom.  As silly as it may seem, I consider it a blessing to have my tithes accepted and to be able to tithe in the first place.

[eager4TRUTH]

I have scanned through the replies on tithing,of which mainly use the o.t. preisthood or Heb.7as the exsample. I read Heb.7;8;9;10 and went back and read in Gen.14 v.18-23.  I could not find where abram gave anything to melchizedek as a tenth or tithe but melchizedek did give to abram.  I could not find where Abram had any thing to give. In the v.22-23 Abram had already made a vow to God that he would not take anything down to a shoelatchet, as well as stating to Bera the king of sodom, that if he would have the kings would be saying that they were the ones which made Abram rich.  Now in v.18-20 the only person that is talking is melchizedek.  In my understanding the catholic church perverted the translation to their advantage, to get money "tithes ordinance" which were nailed to the cross.  What I understand by what I read in Gal.1;2;3;4;5;6 is that once we go back to the law to get anything to live by Christ has become of no effect unto us and we have fallen from grace Gal.5v.4. I say that whether it be circumcism or tithes they both came through and by the law only.  If we look at 2Cor.8 v.12-16 does not teach tithing, as well Paul states that there should be more than one pastor (elder) in each church (assembly) Acts14 v.23.  Not to play on word meanings pastor and elder are the same.  The only people that are to recieve their maintanace (bare necessities) are the evangelist as were Paul and Tim and Barnabas.  Not the men that are elders in an assembly they are to have jobs. One more thing in Acts 4v. 32-37 is another which controdics tithing because Barnabas being a levite by all teaching transgressed the law on tithing becauase he didn't take or teach the taking of them and neither did Paul being a Pharisee which never taught the Gentiles to pay take them. Paul knew that the Gentiles knew nothing about tithing as the Jews. so he would have transgressed as well. What about in Acts where the Gentiles were only told to abstian from blood and things strangled,(why didn't they teach them tithes) Now if I am misunderstanding the scripture please enlighten me.

[Melody]

So the ministry (usually meant as the people, i.e. pastors/shepherds who perform the ministry) comes first and the rest of the Body gets the leftovers?

By implication then, after all the financial needs or wants of the individual minister are met, then whoever else has a financial need can get in line for a handout? God is no respector of persons. It cannot be argued that any one member of the church has a more important financial need than anyone else. We all need food, shelter, clothing, etc. So why would a select few get first pick on the firstfruits so all their needs are met, and then everyone else can scramble for the crumbs? It doesn't seem equal. It's not love. Read Ezekiel 34 for further considerations.

I just want to say something to this question.  

I have only found it to be the case that people that work are paid for their labor 1st and then distribution be done for the poor.  The gleaners did not go through and pick 1st from the fields but after harvest.  There is a sewing reaping principle here and it is scriptural to pay those that worked first then give freely to the poor.

Likewise if the pastor/staff are about doing the Lord's bidding full time, they should be paid 1st and what remains be dealt with accordingly, and also from their own pay are they accountable to help the needy.  I see it being the same from OT time of priests sharing the leftovers with the poor to now the pastor having a set income where if there is more church income that month/year there is more for the needy.  

My church has a compassion ministry, missionaries' offerings, plus pockets of peoples here and there organizing efforts to help those in need including work/time not just $$.  In times like these when more and more people are losing their jobs, we are also trying to follow the Spirit and help our brethren make it, I have seen this a lot this year.  It's not just about the poorest of the poor but giving what we have to someone who needs it far more.

Luk 10:7      And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

1Ti 5:18      For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward.

[eager4TRUTH]

I read Luke 10 v.7 as well as 1-17 Christ had just sent forth 70 people which were of His followers.  He sent them out two by two not one by one as is taught today.  He did this twice as well sending His 12 apostles out two at a time not one at a time.  He always sent His desiples out that way to teach because of their witness for each other. Because they were missionaries better known as evangelists, which were the only deciples that were allowed to get their maintenance.  Christ never took a tithe nor did any of the apostles.  Paul stated he was to get his bare necessities met not tithes.  Take a look at any of our examples from Christ to Paul none lived above the people they were teaching.  further more we are the temple (dwelling place) of God on this earth not a building of wood, mortar, or metal. Peter siad in 1Pet.2v.9 we are all priest of the royal priesthood of Jesus. Meaning that we are all Spiritual priest not carnal.  We are to take care of each other not one person calling himself a priest over God's sheep.  When we do that we bring back the law and make ourselves transgressers.   Making that man a carnal priest which was abolished.  Making him and us required to fulfill the whole law.  We are living in a Spiritual dispensation as was all the decipes.  no rum have much to write.

[jfrog]

No one against tithes is pro freeloading.  There are churches (not sure if they are apostolic of not) that do not teach tithing or require it for membership.  They still have their church buildings.  They still finance all their ministries.  I am always utterly amazed that every single time anyone starts to speak against tithing that the very first complaint is that they are freeloaders, are greedy, and don't want to support their own church.  The fact is that tithing is so prevalent a teaching that those who chose not to tithe cannot in good conscience not tithe for any of those reasons.  For them to chose not to tithe they have to sincerely believe that tithing is something that is not taught in the bible as being for the new testament church.

I should also make this clear.  Those against tithing don't care if someone else wants to tithe.  They may even give 10% or more of their own income to the church.  What they are against is hearing it claimed that the bible supports something that they don't believe it does.  To anti-tithers the big thing isn't that a church would require a tithe of members.  Doing that is okay in their eyes.  It's teaching the tithe as a commandment of the bible that they have a problem with.  This is the beef of the anti-tithe crowd has with the tithing crowd.