History of Tithes in the Church

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Thanks.

If that only says, though, that if priests could live solely by food being given to them, then who is to say that Paul did not state that ministers of the gospel should be supplied with food so as to forego working for food?

But the truth is that the priests had much more than only food provided to them. They had housing and lodging. Their livelihood was being addressed by Paul when he said to live of the things of the temple, not just food from the altar.

Right.

But they didn't have a monetary stipend. Did they?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Right.

But they didn't have a monetary stipend. Did they?

Agreed, but that is due to their culture in part. I think it's missing the forest for the trees to focus on what hey received to live compared to our day. They received livelihood.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Agreed, but that is due to their culture in part. I think it's missing the forest for the trees to focus on what hey received to live compared to our day. They received livelihood.

But that's the point of disagreement. One side is saying that salaries were in fact part of the culture but the priests received food and lodging, not a salary. Therefore salaries were excluded intentionally.

By salary I mean income paid in money.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You began this exchange over 1 Corinthians 9 making the point wages where not money.

Correct, over 1 Corinthians 9.

Brother, just because in one instance and context (1 Cor. 9), the Scriptures only speak of food as an offering, doesn't mean that money is not mentioned as given in an offering somewhere else in a different instance and context.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You ever think it maybe because human nature is wicked, and when you try to do something for God you are going to face opposition?

Could be you're right. But then again, part of the idea of human nature being wicked means that, since you are human, your nature is wicked, too, and wickedness doesn't just act out to abuse, sometimes it acts in, in order to be abused.

So, instead of looking outward to cast blame on the people of God (other humans and their wickedness) and God Himself (trying to do something for God/opposition), it is imperative to examine whether or not you're the only common denominator in all your problems.

For example, you wrote you never suffered such abuse for so little.

Would it matter how much abuse you suffered if you were making $100K? Would it be okay with you then? I mean, how much money do you need to make off the church in order for the abuse to be okay, at least without you making a statement (complaint???) like you did before about so much abuse vs. so little pay?

And if you answer, it's never okay for me to be abused, even for all the money in the world, then why do you put up with it? Why not go to the brother or sister that is mistreating you, and call him or her out on it?

There is nothing in the Scriptures which indicates anyone in the service of God is supposed to politely and quietly suffer abuse at the hands of members of the Body of Christ.

In fact, Paul upbraided the Corinthians for allowing themselves to be abused:

2 Corinthians 11:19-20 (ESV),

19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.

Paul was not commending them for this. So, how about you take to task anyone who is abusing you, like Jesus taught:

Matthew 18:15-20 (ESV),

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[f] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Correct, over 1 Corinthians 9.

Brother, just because in one instance and context (1 Cor. 9), the Scriptures only speak of food as an offering, doesn't mean that money is not mentioned as given in an offering somewhere else in a different instance and context.

The narrative keeps flipping so much, I can’t keep up with it. Initially the argument was over tithes. Many made the the case we should no longer teach tithe. Then the point was then made that the NT should support ministry through some means such as a salary as it is appropriate for the financial situation of that body. Then people started making the case that it is only biblically done in food. Once it became established that it was not always just food, people started making the case over which ministries biblically qualify.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 Corinthians 9:14
In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should earn their living by the gospel.

Live
g2198. ζάω zaō; a primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively): — life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick.
AV (143) - live 117, be alive 9, alive 6, quick 4, lively 3, not tr 1, misc 2, vr live 1;

The person who preaches the gospel “should” receive the things that sustain their life.

Like mortgage payments, and vehicle loans, and vacations, and etc.? See, since you make the claim Paul means more than just food, where do you draw the line? And just because you draw the line at a shorter distance than some or even most, who's to say another person can't take that line a couple more miles down the road and say, I need these things to sustain my life?

Or, we could just let Paul's words mean exactly what they mean, and "learn to no go beyond that which is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6), so that no one gets puffed up in favor, one over another.

As I have already said, it wasn’t IMO, Paul’s intent for his epistles to be made into regulatory laws that say you can give this, but not that.

So, he just used the words he used, to convey his particular points to his particular audience, and gets very specific with them and refers to an OT context in which only food was given, but here in the 21st century, we get to stretch his words to mean anything we want? That's how it's done?

Also this passage doesn’t limit giving to only traveling teachers/evangelists, but to all who minister the gospel.

Where is the word "minister" in 1 Corinthians 9, in the way you mean it, and not according to those who serve at the altar in the temple?

For Paul, a herald of the Gospel didn't park himself in a spot on a platform behind a box week after week after week for the rest of his life while everyone came to him to hear whatever he had to say.

No, for Paul, preaching the Gospel meant travelling from place to place (See Romans 15:19-20 for an example).

1 Corinthians 9:16 (ESV),

16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

Preach the Gospel (first use): εὐαγγελίζωμαι (euangelizōmai)

Preach the Gospel (second use): εὐαγγελίσωμαι (euangelisōmai)

Both are verb forms, from the same root, that means "to evangelize".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/9-16.htm

It's the same word Jesus used (and was used of Him) when He insisted He had to travel to other towns:

Luke 4:43 (ESV),

43 but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

Luke 8:1 (ESV),

1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God.

It's the same word used of the disciples Jesus sent out:

Luke 9:6 (ESV),

6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

It's the word used when the saints fled Jerusalem and went everywhere preaching the Gospel:

Acts 8:4 (ESV),

4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.

It's the same word used of Philip when he travelled to Samaria to preach the Gospel:

Acts 8:12 (ESV),

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

I think the point is made. Evangelization requires travel. There may be instances where a temporary stop is made for a little time, and someone preaches the Good News there for that time, as the Spirit leads, but not as a permanent home inside of a building, behind a box with a microphone and sound system paid for with tithes.

The saints at Jerusalem sold houses and lands and laid the price at the apostles feet. Obviously, it was money, and it was shared with all poor as well as the apostles. The apostles don’t seem to be any longer fisherman to support themselves, but had become fishers of men. Matter of fact they had forsaken their nets(secular jobs) long before, in order to follow Jesus.

Are you an apostle? Am I? Who then gets the right to forbear work, according to Paul and the example of the Twelve?

There isn’t any direct NT commandment that institutes exact methodology on giving in the NT.

Yes, there is. You can start with 1 Corinthians 16:2 and go from there.

The scriptures (old and new testaments) teach many principles about giving, but there is no exact instructions that the church is to follow.

Yes, there is. You can start with 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 and go from there.

Serving is more important than being served. Hirelings serve for the money, but Gods minister serves because it is his purpose given by God. Take away the money and material things, and nothing would change. The motivation isn’t material.

You cannot differentiate what Jesus said based solely on hidden motives. The word Jesus used means a wage-earner. That's the bottom-line. He didn't speak of motive, only of results: that when the wolves come in, the hireling flees, because he's not the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep.

Give up your salary, and do everything you do for free, and trust God to make up the difference, with another child on the way, and see if you last. Test your own motives.

I know a brother who was taking a salary of $36,000 a year from the church he pastored. He realized his error, repented of it, recanted it publicly, and refused to take a penny from anyone, and God led a local businessman to randomly pick his church out of a phonebook to make a donation of $50,000 to that church, from which, the pastor took not a penny, and God gave him an opportunity to start his own business that allowed him to make over 3X his former salary, while enriching the church so all sorts of needs could be met, like fixing saints' cars, sending missionaries around the world, buying groceries for those in need, and right on down the list, paying people's rent, donating large sums to the injured, and etc.

Through that church, I was able to raise over $7,000.00 with a couple of texts and one in person conversation so a lady I worked with who had been crippled in a car accident wouldn't lose her house, could have her utilities paid for, and have all sorts of other needs met, until her husband could go back to work after a knee surgery which had taken place just a couple of days before her accident (black ice in February in WI on the way to work).

Simply because the people of God there got on board with doing things God's way, exactly, precisely, according to only that which is written, and not beyond.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How doe sthat work with the compariso verse before Paul mentioned living of the gospel?

1 Corinthians 9:13-14.. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? ..(14).. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Whatever it was that Paul meant by living of the gospel is understood by the comparison he made as a reference to how priests lived of the things of the temple and altar. When they lived of the things of the temple and altar, were they getting a meal on occasion and a bed while travelling?

In Paul's case, perhaps. But Paul said ministers of the gospel despite what others may have said about this limited to apostles.

Brother, I know you know the Scriptures well, so I won't belabor the point, but only say as follows:

Paul's comparison was to those "who are employed in the temple service [and] get their food from the temple, and [to] those who serve at the altar [who] share in the sacrificial offerings" (1 Corinthians 9:13, ESV).

Who are these that are employed in temple service and serve at the altar?

They are priests of the Levitical order, wouldn't you agree?

There were 24 orders of priests designated by King David (1 Chronicles 24:7-18), according to the family names and heads of each family.

These did not live exclusively and permanently in Jerusalem, because the Levites were given cities and villages throughout the various tribal lands of Israel. While they lived in those cities and villages, the Levites had farms to work and could provide for their own sustenance:

Joshua 14:4 (ESV),

For the people of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. And no portion was given to the Levites in the land, but only cities to dwell in, with their pasturelands for their livestock and their substance.

Joshua 21:3 (ESV),

So by command of the Lord the people of Israel gave to the Levites the following cities and pasturelands out of their inheritance.

But then, when a particular course of the Levitical order was called up to serve in Jerusalem, all the members of that family, according to the head of each clan, went up to Jerusalem to minister:

Luke 1:5-8 (ESV),

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense...

While each individual family from the Levitical priesthood were in Jerusalem and away from their homes, their cities, and their pasturelands where they could provide for themselves, they were permitted by God to eat portions of the holy things which were sacrificed on the altar (e.g. Exodus 29:33, Leviticus 21:22). Money was never sacrificed there, even though there were offering boxes outside of the temple, at least in the Court of the Women, across from the Treasury (Mark 12:41-43 and Luke 21:1-3).

So, while the various courses of priests served in the temple, and had to travel perhaps long distances from their ancestral homes to Jerusalem, they were given a place to live/rest/sleep, a change in garments (their official work uniform, see, e.g. Exodus 28, and Exodus 31:10), food to eat, and presumably, funds for travelling back home when their course was over.

Then Paul writes:

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

Those who proclaim the gospel should have available to them the very same things the Levites had available to them when they travelled to Jerusalem in order to complete their service in the temple:

- Free housing
- Change of garments
- Food to eat
- Funds for travelling

No more, no less.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The Holy Ghost would convict me of idolatry. There are direct commands by the apostles that forbid idolatry.

Only because there are laws in the OT that command us not to worship idols, beginning in Exodus 20, in the Ten Commandments.

Otherwise, where there is no law, sin is not imputed (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13).

Essentially, the reason you believe the Holy Spirit would convict you, and correctly so, I might add, is because the Holy Spirit forbad the worshipping of idols at Sinai (Exodus 20:1-6).

Makes one wonder what other laws the Holy Spirit might convict a person of, from out of the Ten Commandments?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Could be you're right. But then again, part of the idea of human nature being wicked means that, since you are human, your nature is wicked, too, and wickedness doesn't just act out to abuse, sometimes it acts in, in order to be abused.

So, instead of looking outward to cast blame on the people of God (other humans and their wickedness) and God Himself (trying to do something for God/opposition), it is imperative to examine whether or not you're the only common denominator in all your problems.

For example, you wrote you never suffered such abuse for so little.

Would it matter how much abuse you suffered if you were making $100K? Would it be okay with you then? I mean, how much money do you need to make off the church in order for the abuse to okay, at least without you making a statement (complaint???) like you did before about so much abuse vs. so little pay?

And if you answer, it's never okay for me to be abused, even for all the money in the world, then why do you put up with it? Why not go to the brother or sister that is mistreating you, and call him or her out on it?

There is nothing in the Scriptures which indicates anyone in the service of God is supposed to politely and quietly suffer abuse at the hands of members of the Body of Christ.

In fact, Paul upbraided the Corinthians for allowing themselves to be abused:

2 Corinthians 11:19-20 (ESV),



Paul was not commending them for this. So, how about you take to task anyone who is abusing you, like Jesus taught:

Matthew 18:15-20 (ESV),

I never said I allow abuse. The point wasn’t how to deal with abuse, the point is that when you labor for God, you will suffer abuse. I am not crying over my problems in my field of labor. I would not trade anything for. I am only dealing with your definition of being a hireling.

John 10:13
-- The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.


Through the years I have voluntarily forfeited a church salary, because it was not expedient. Through the years I have taught Bible studies, preached in nursing homes, jail ministries, and also given my secular work away for free. I am not saying that to win any awards, and I really feel uncomfortable saying it at all. So technically, because our church (at present) is able (without burdening the saints) to offer me a salary, I am going to thank God for it, and labor no differently than I would if it could not.

If you want to get technical we are all hirelings.

Matthew 20:1-2
1......For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
2......And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard……………….

You included.

As far as man’s wickedness, you are correct, I am still very capable of committing wickedness. That really has no bearing on this discussion. We should support ministry not because they are perfect, but because we want to further the kingdom of God locally and everywhere else. If people feel that what they give is not being invested wisely then they should invest elsewhere.