Tithing…Is it a command?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a interesting read.
http://churchtithesandofferings.com/

[rava61]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

Wow, amazing. While I disagree with the statement "having a struggle with paying our tithe" since that only means you put something else before the tithe, I would in no way ever tell a person they couldn't worship. It's like telling someone they can't come to the alter until they clean up first

Well, that certainly sounds like something he would have said - thanks for those 'encouraging' words: only among the 'Pentecostals' do we get such unwavering support.

It might be a good idea for you to revisit the whole concept of Christianity. I guess my question to you would be 'how do you know that I put anything before the tithe'?
RV

[rava61]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Like a mortgage? The electric bill? A car or insurance payment?

We don't know the situation here (and I have known many who 'struggle' when all they would have to do is cut their HBO and SHOWTIME movie packages from their cable bills to make ends meet), but it seems awfully 'easy' to have faith for someone else.

You're right! but at this time in our life we were not allowed to have a TV in our home, so that wasn't the issue either.

RV

[gloryseeker]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Like a mortgage? The electric bill? A car or insurance payment?

We don't know the situation here .

You are correct that we don't know the situation here, BUT even in your example of mortgage, electric, or car insurance all points to the fact that we put our living before God.

How is God first in our life if He is not first?

As for me, if God couldn't be first because my mortgage was too high I would downsize. If my car insurance was too high I would get a cheaper car. It is no different then cutting the cable or the HBO package. It all comes down to priorities.

The reason most Christians don't see God's blessings on their lives is because God is not first. He is an after thought. Offerings are budgetary items and God is not a budgetary item.

[Christian]

In 2 Cor. 16 Paul was not supporting tithes, this chapter is directly linked to Acts 11:27-30 ,Romans 15:26-27 & 2 Cor. 9:1-12. It was a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem that were suffering from a dearth. Paul would have used the word tithe if that is what he was talking about here. No apostle in the New Testament ever took or paid tithes, Paul was a tentmaker and he not only provided for his own needs, but also others (Acts 18:3, 20:33-35, 28:30, I Cor. 4:12) Ironic how he found time to work & to evangelize the whole known world & write 14 epistles!! Paul did not quote Mal. 3, or any other tithe verse when he refered to ministerial support, instead he went all the way back to Deut.25:4 in I Cor. 9:9 The New Testament does allow ministerial support, but not at all tithes. Keep in mind that 2 Tim. 6:9-11 & Acts 20:28-35 were in reference to "ministers". The before the law argument is so lame, circumcision was also before the law in Gen. 17. You would actually be cut off in verse 14 if you were not circumcised, yet it is not preached in these churches today. It makes one wonder how that tithes is mentioned 7 times from Matt. - Rev. & circumcision is mentioned 55 times yet it is not as widely taught today (because there is no money in circumcision.) If Abraham kept giving tithes after Gen. 14, then how come his grandson Jacob made a vow to pay a tenth after he came back to Bethel (Gen, 28:22.) it seems like Jacob would have already been in the habit of tithing. On Malachi 3:8, the book of Malachi was written to Israel you will see key words in the whole book including: Levi, Sons Of Jacob,Ordinances, Tithes, Offerings, This Whole Nation, Storehouse, ect. How can the N.T Church be cursed when Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us? (Gal. 3:13.) There is volumes more to be said on this subject, but I just wanted to put my $.25 in. One last note our Church has known the truth of tithes for over 20yrs. and we have heard at least most of the common arguments such as how are the bills going to get paid, your church's people are stingy, I don't want my minister working, ect. We all give willing not of necessity (2Cor. 9:7) and we not only pay the bills but we have on numerous occasions "paid the bills" for not only our own but also many people who are members of tithe taking churches.

[SwordmanJr]

Originally Posted by Rev

(Heb 7:1)....
(Heb 7:2)....
(Heb 7:3)....
(Heb 7:4)....

Reading these versus IN CONTEXT reveals the fact that the thrust of these passages was in relation to a measure of the priesthood of Christ in relation to the pristhood of men, and therefore that the preisthood of Christ is superior to man's priesthood. Not one passage in that section of scripture upholds the idea of a continuance of the tithe.

Now, if you can show me such a passage, or point out where in the CONTEXT that a continuance of the tithe was what the writer had in mind, then I will certainly give it another look.

Originally Posted by Rev

(Mat 23:23) 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.

Jesus also told one of the men He had healed to go and offer up burnt sacrifices at the altar in thanksgiving for the healing. Are we, then, to follow that as well. After all, Jesus said it, right?

Quite frankly, ignoring the fact that Jesus was addressing a people who were still required to obey the Law....to the letter....makes me wonder about the agenda behind the pro-required-tithing dogma.

Now, let's put this in perspective, shall we: The Law NOWHERE demanded a tithe of anyone's wages. Not one verse can be shown to define the tithe as being a measure of monetary wages. The implication of this fact is that no wage-earner was required to hand over to the Levites a portion of his wages.

Now, if you can show me that I'm wrong, then please do so. I won't hide behind opinion and feelings about this. Simply show me the evience in support of your words. That's a reasonable request.

Originally Posted by Rev

Tithing didn't start under the law, it started in Genesis.

If you are Abraham's seed you will also pay tithes just like he did!

First of all, you made use of the plural when uttering the term "tithes," as if you're privy to some special information to which no other man walking this earth has access; information that allegedly proves that Abraham tithed continuously to Melchizedek or anyone else. We're told of only ONE instance where Abraham handed over a tenth of the spoils of war, which was not at all a tithe similar to what's taught and practiced today. Nowehre in that text are we told that he ventured up to his home in northern Canaan, collected a tenth of his own personal property, brought it back and handed it over to Melchizedek. He handed over a tenth of other people's stolen property he retrieved from those five thieving kings.

Just in case someone wants to try and argue the foolish notion that the spoils of war were Abraham's property, well, please give thought to the fact that Abraham knew from whom the spoils were stolen. He did the noble thing by returning the stolen property to its rightful owners....apart from the portion he gave to Melchizedek in thanksgiving for the victory, and in recognition to God's provision of that victory.

Also give thought to the fact that if YOU retrieved someone else's stolen property, would YOU keep it for yourself, or would you do the Christian thing by returning it to its rightful owner? Why, then, are there so many people, who claim to be Christian, willing to villify Abraham by assigning to him a character that is LESS than Christian?

Come, now. Let's be honest, shall we.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

You are correct that we don't know the situation here, BUT even in your example of mortgage, electric, or car insurance all points to the fact that we put our living before God.

How is God first in our life if He is not first?

As for me, if God couldn't be first because my mortgage was too high I would downsize. If my car insurance was too high I would get a cheaper car. It is no different then cutting the cable or the HBO package. It all comes down to priorities.

The reason most Christians don't see God's blessings on their lives is because God is not first. He is an after thought. Offerings are budgetary items and God is not a budgetary item.

If I ran your accounts and yearly equity, I would note that you nor anyone else is putting God first.

The Jew in the old testement took the vaule of all things on a yearly basis.

That would mean your 401K, equity in your home, earned income etc.

We American's do not understand networth.

The church teaches tithing as associated with earned income from a place of employment.

A good self-employed person could show no income.

Also the Jew when they lost numbers of sheep due to disease etc.

They could show a loss for the year and pay nothing...

Just as in the past 2 years my loss of home equity.

Loss of over 100K in my 401k and stock has me sitting at a negative since my income and networth in 2007.

I have lost a total of $175 from my networth since mid 2007.

That is not because of not being able to pay my mortgage or payments being to high or bad investments.

It is the simple supply and demand on our economy.

So to the church I would say, I have not had and income in a positive light since 2006.

So as for tithing there are no first fruits.

The money coming in from earned income has not been keeping up with networth loss.

So since mid 2007 there has been zero increase...

But many will preach that the check I receive are the first fruits...

The first fruits actually are tied to my networth of which a tithe was already paid.

Those increases became decreases which out paced my pay for employment.

So again since Dec 2006 there have been no first fruits to bring to the storehouse....

The Jew did not bring their income forward on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis.

They did at the beginning of each year and only once per year.

To show the total of their increase from the prior year.

In the same mannor the priest walked through the Holiest of Holies to seek forgiveness of their sins for a year.

But yet I am still preached to that I should give 10% from my check!

Which is not equal to the custom from the OT in any light or doctrine...

God is first, the fact is there has been "no" increase!

[SwordmanJr]

Originally Posted by Neck

So as for tithing there are no first fruits.

The concept of "first fruit," biblically speaking, refers to an INCREASE from fields, orchards, vineyards, flocks and herds. The word of God at no time ever defined wages as a form of INCREASE.

I can't for the life of me figure out why the tradition of transposition was ever allowed to set in by the general Christian populace. The false teachings that attempt to transpose WAGES over into the arena of INCREASE, in relation to how the word of God defines an INCREASE, continues to this very day....unabated! Why?

Wages are a direct EXCHANGE of money for one's labor and skills. INCREASE, as defined by the Bible, is that which comes forth because of the mechanisms God created in nature itself, such as a single seed multiplying 20, 50, 100, and sometimes even 1000 times. That has nothing to do with wages EXCHANGED for labor and skills. Such a comparison is apples to oranges.

So since mid 2007 there has been zero increase...

Even if you had been in the black in your earnings, God's word nowhere defines that as an increase from which one must tithe. Even ancient Israel was not required to tithe to the Levites from their earned wages.

But many will preach that the check I receive are the first fruits...

That's the earmark of a false teacher. Why not challenge such people on biblical grounds. I do, and they hate me with a passion....which is (stereotypically speaking) the usual code among all false teachers.

The first fruits actually are tied to my networth of which a tithe was already paid.

Paid? In what sense? Are you saying that you OWE a tithe? To whom, or what?

So again since Dec 2006 there have been no first fruits to bring to the storehouse....

Storehouse? What storehouse? Are you saying that your religious church organization is some sort of storehouse? How so? Please elaborate.

The Jew did not bring their income forward on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis.

They did at the beginning of each year and only once per year.

Not the cobblers, fishermen, carpenters, or any other wage earner. Jesus and his family didn't tithe to the Levites. It was only the farmers and ranchers who did that. We need to keep the true image of reality before our eyes when making such statements.

But yet I am still preached to that I should give 10% from my check!

Yes, and such preaching is based upon a false premise that most congregant members are too lazy to lookup and see for themselves that such men are false teachers, and therefore not worthy of receiving ANYTHING from the congregation. Such men need to get a REAL job, and thus become productive citizens rather than dead weights and leeches who teach false doctrine from behind a pulpit.

Which is not equal to the custom from the OT in any light or doctrine...

Then why say that you "paid"?

God is first, the fact is there has been "no" increase!

The man who had only nine lambs or only nine calves born in a year was not required to tithe. The man whose fields produced only enough to feed his family in a year was not required to tithe on account of no increase. The increase was based ONLY upon that which was above and beyond what it took to feed one's family in a year AND what it would take to replant the crop in the following year. The Lord at no time demanded that the Israelites practice impoverished giving, such as is the usual drone of modern-day prosperity teachers.

[UrbanMissions]

Plain and simple , tithing was a covenant between natural Israelites and GOD and since we are not natural Israelites under the Old covenant but are under " a better covenant with better promises " we are not under the law of Moses through whom tithing was commanded.
There is not one New Covenant ( Acts-Revelation ) command to tithe but there is instruction on being " a cheerful giver . "

[Neck]

Originally Posted by SwordmanJr

The concept of "first fruit," biblically speaking, refers to an INCREASE from fields, orchards, vineyards, flocks and herds. The word of God at no time ever defined wages as a form of INCREASE.

I can't for the life of me figure out why the tradition of transposition was ever allowed to set in by the general Christian populace. The false teachings that attempt to transpose WAGES over into the arena of INCREASE, in relation to how the word of God defines an INCREASE, continues to this very day....unabated! Why?

Wages are a direct EXCHANGE of money for one's labor and skills. INCREASE, as defined by the Bible, is that which comes forth because of the mechanisms God created in nature itself, such as a single seed multiplying 20, 50, 100, and sometimes even 1000 times. That has nothing to do with wages EXCHANGED for labor and skills. Such a comparison is apples to oranges.




Even if you had been in the black in your earnings, God's word nowhere defines that as an increase from which one must tithe. Even ancient Israel was not required to tithe to the Levites from their earned wages.



That's the earmark of a false teacher. Why not challenge such people on biblical grounds. I do, and they hate me with a passion....which is (stereotypically speaking) the usual code among all false teachers.



Paid? In what sense? Are you saying that you OWE a tithe? To whom, or what?



Storehouse? What storehouse? Are you saying that your religious church organization is some sort of storehouse? How so? Please elaborate.



Not the cobblers, fishermen, carpenters, or any other wage earner. Jesus and his family didn't tithe to the Levites. It was only the farmers and ranchers who did that. We need to keep the true image of reality before our eyes when making such statements.



Yes, and such preaching is based upon a false premise that most congregant members are too lazy to lookup and see for themselves that such men are false teachers, and therefore not worthy of receiving ANYTHING from the congregation. Such men need to get a REAL job, and thus become productive citizens rather than dead weights and leeches who teach false doctrine from behind a pulpit.



Then why say that you "paid"?



The man who had only nine lambs or only nine calves born in a year was not required to tithe. The man whose fields produced only enough to feed his family in a year was not required to tithe on account of no increase. The increase was based ONLY upon that which was above and beyond what it took to feed one's family in a year AND what it would take to replant the crop in the following year. The Lord at no time demanded that the Israelites practice impoverished giving, such as is the usual drone of modern-day prosperity teachers.

************************************************** ****

I agree with much of what you stated. My comments using the terms preached by the church today. Were only used to define my stance on what the meaning of increase is associated with...

Increase is not your income buth the concept of increase on what you have gained.

So to your point, when I can show, that I have less in a year, then when I started, there is no tithe to be paid.

You did put forth a solid point of view.

I see giving a tithe or an amount each week as an offering not a tithe.

Even if that measure is equal to 10% of the a person's "check".