History of Tithes in the Church

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

You are in the wrong book of the Bible. I am talking about the book of Acts in the twentieth chapter.

When Paul was trying to get to Jerusalem, and it had been prophesied that he would be arrested when he got there. He sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. He knew he would never see them again and this is what he told them.

17] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
[18] And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
[19] Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
[20] And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
[21] Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
[22] And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
[23] Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
[24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
[25] And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
[26] Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
[27] For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
[29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
[30] Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
[31] Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
[32] And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.


[33] I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
[34] Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
[35] I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.


[36] And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
[37] And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
[38] Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.

Paul clearly is saying to the elders of the church that we showed you how we worked with our own hands to support the church. He said he supported not only the weak in the church, but himself and they that were with him.

Am I not rrrrrrright? Am I in the proper context?

Yes or no?

He did say that there would be wolves entering the flock later . . .

Brother Blume? How about answering here? Could you possibly answer this question?

I’m beginning to wonder.

Did the Apostle Paul clearly teach the elders to support the church in this specific passage?

By working with their hands? (manual labor).

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You won't see the overall context of chapter 9, will you? A MINISTER OF THE WORD'S RIGHT to live OF the gospel. No one is as blind as those who will not see.

I stayed in the context, you went out of it to give it your own application. At the end, all doctrinal discussion comes down to hermeneutics principles, as usual. You have a preconceived bias. You come to the Bible with an idea already in your head.

Originally Posted by mfblume

AS THEY GIVE is the people =n whose homes they stayed, not the men sent by Jesus.

I totally agree. I was mentioning as an example to them (the ones sent) of how to do it. They didn't go around asking for tithing as the model for support, but accept free will support, starting from hospitality, and also other support (food, clothing, etc...)

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

God accepted it because I distinctly saw him undoubtedly BLESS people for doing so.

I have also seen people being healed in the name of Jesus by the prayers of Trinitarians. Experiences are there because God is merciful and responds to faith, but it doesn't make the doctrine that it is in their head 100% correct.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Coqsiw

I stayed in the context, you went out of it to give it your own application. At the end, all doctrinal discussion comes down to hermeneutics principles, as usual. You have a preconceived bias. You come to the Bible with an idea already in your head.

You have not stayed within context. I will show that this is the case with your belief.

The exegesis of this chapter will show that I have not pushed a preconceived bias about ministerial support as I have been accused of doing by using 1 Cor 9.


EXEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 9.

1 Corinthians 9:1-27
(1).. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
(2).. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
(3).. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
(4).. Have we not power to eat and to drink?
(5).. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
(6).. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

The concept Paul raises is how that he has as much right as the other apostles to receive sustenance -- food and drink -- during the course of his ministry as he does to be married with a wife, and forbear working.

Verse 6 sis the first indication of the error of those who propose the minister ought not forego working and should work. In order for Paul to categorize leading about a wife with receiving sustenance and forbearing work shows us that his right was NOT TO WORK and to receive sustenance from those to whom he ministered. He would have referred to forbearing the RECEPTION of SUSTENANCE if the brethren here were correct in proposing that a minister ought to work and not forbear working.

So, only 6 verses into the chapter shows the error of those who insist ministers ought to work.

(7).. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Context above shows that Paul compares a minister of the gospel with a soldier who is PAID BY THE MILITARY to fight, and with a vinekeeper who EAST OF THE VINEYARD FREELY WITHOUT COST, and with a herder WHO DRINKS OF HTE MILK OF THE FLOCK WITHOUT COST. The labour of a soldier, vinekeeper and herder is just that... A LABOUR. Ands Paul is saying that working in the cause of the gospel is comparable to these other vocations where the direct involvement with that with which a minister works gives him the right to receive income from it.

(8).. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Paul then says he is not speaking through his hat, but the LAW OF GOD espouses the same principle.

(9).. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

Here is proof of the minister's right to receive income from the congregation. When an ox treads the corn, it is working with the field where there is corn, similar to a minister working with the congregation in the Word. And as the ox has a right to eat the corn from the field, the minister has a right to be sustained with income from the congregation with whom he ministers. Paul said that this law was a principle that applies to ministers of the gospel.

(10).. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Paul answers the question of if that law of the ox was only written strictly for oxen and not also for gospel ministers. He says it is for gospel ministers. He actually indicates that it is "HUMANE" to support the ministry as much as it is so to allow an ox to eat of the corn . that it is treading. And it is actually more for the purpose of the ministry than a mere ox.

(11).. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Here he says the minister is sowing spiritual things in the ministry he is giving to the congregation. The carnal things referred to are the various means of sustenance for the preacher to LIVE of the gospel. And he uses the words "is it a great thing," as to indicate that it not be considered unreasonable for a minister to live of the gospel.

(12).. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?

Here he says that there were teachers in their congregation who used the right to be supported by the congregati0on and Paul says that he should as well. So, this removes the grounds for all who claim this rule is for apostles alone. He appealed tot he ministers IN THEIR OWN CONGREGATION who were already accepted as those with right to be supported by the congregation. This lets us know that the Corinthians had no question about teachers in their own congregation receiving their support, but that the question was whether Paul and Barnabas should be supported. This turns the tables on the controversy even more for those who insist the chapter is only for apostles.

12b Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Here, Paul says he did not use the power he just outlined from the first of this chapter to verse 12. Exegesis demands grammatically correct construct of terms used, meaning that "nevertheless" indicates that something is opposite or at least different in what is said after the term than before the term. And seeing as the context before the term "nevertheless" clearly shows the support of the minister of the gospel from the congregation to whom he ministers, then his explanation of why he did not forbear working is understood of a WAIVING OF HIS RIGHT to receive income from the church.

(13).. 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.

He briefly reverts back tot he context before "nevertheless," and supports the concept that a minister should receive income form the congregation and forbear working by noting that the old covenant priesthood lived and were supported by the sustenance of the temple activity. They partook of the altar and that supported them for food. And he says that that same principle of living from the temple is applied to the gospel where its ministers live of the gospel. In other words, he repeats the large context of the minister's right to forebear work.

(15).. But I have used none of these things: ...

He repeats the pattern of verse 12 where he says it's his right to live of the gospel, but then said, "nevertheless," to say he abrogated that right. Here, he says did not contend for HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to forego working. He said HE CHOSE to support himself by working.

And what we are seeing is that he is indicating that people were accusing him of not being a true apostle because he abrogated his right to income!! People claimed that he was not supported of the gospel but worked with his hands to support himself, proving he was not a true3 apostle. This brings us back to verse 2 where he said that if he was not an apostles like others were, he was AT LEAST an apostle to the Corinthians.

Continued...

[mfblume]

...continued.

Verse 1 indicated that the entire issue was over whether or not Paul was a genuine apostle.

1 Corinthians 9:1
(1).. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

And the FREEDOM he refers to is the freedom from having to WORK to support himself. That is the context! We learn that as we proceed in the context of the chapter and see how he appeals to all the reasons why he should not have to work and that it was his right to not work.

So, it is plainly evident that Paul is referring to the issue of working to support himself while ministering or not working in order to invalidate their claims that he could not be an apostle since he was not supported by the body of Christ.

Back to verse 15:

(15b) ...neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me:

Here he says he did not write about all of this to demand an income from the congregation at Corinth.

..for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

He was telling them that he would not receive their support in the future either, although it was his right. He was stating that he was in self-denial even of things that were his right and the right of all ministers of the gospel, and he refused to be supported to grow deeper in his self-denial.

Here he says that there were more important reasons that he chose to not forego working than life, itself, to him. Paul was saying that he would rather waste away in poverty and the peril to let himself die than to take away this glorying that he had in being able to say HE DID NOT TAKE INCOME FROM CONGREGATIONS.

He was not pushing them to support him. He was simply saying that IT WAS HIS RIGHT to receive an income. He was letting them know that he refusal to take income was not because he knew, himself, that he was not an apostle, because apostles should receive an income and his conscience would not allow him to do that for fear of being dishonest in his apostleship.

He was by no means demanding that all apostles (that he mentioned in the first few verses, when he indicated who had a right to forego working) and all teachers (as he indicated in verse 12 by referring to others who have been supported by the Corinthian church) and ministers of the gospel (that he mentioned in verse 14 who had a right to be supported by the church) should forego working. He was saying that they all, including himself, had a right to forego working. However, he wanted to glory in the fact that he did not forego working.

And then he refers to his use of the word GLORY, to ensure people did not get the wrong understanding.

(16).. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

Verse 15 says he had a cause for glorying, and he would not let that be taken away. In verse 16, he is informing us about what that glory was. It was not in preaching. He said he had to preach and had no choice in that matter. But the glorying was about a CHOICE TO DENY SELF.

He actually said that there was a level of self-denial in being willing to FOREGO WORKING which was HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to forego! He was saying that he demonstrated his willingness to do ANYTHING to preach the gospel! He DID NOT TEACH that ministers should forego work as he did. THEY CAN forego work, if they also want to delve more into self-denial. But our brethren here are making it to be something completely different than what Paul plainly taught --- he taught it was ONLY A CHOICE TO DENY SELF in that level, which was not demanded by God, but obviously would be blessed by God. And legalism takes the stand when a person takes what God allows for a CHOICE to become a DEMAND OF GOD. Self-denial is a must, but not to the level that Paul exercised it.

Self-denial is a demand, yes. But 1 Cor 9 clearly shows that God ordained that preachers should live of the gospel.

(17).. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
(18).. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

He was not saying that he bypassed support from the church, as people are demanding here, as though God demanded that he bypass it because he was not entitled to it. He said that it showed how much he loved preaching the gospel, that he would not even receive his God-ordained support from the congregation. He did not say that he directed other ministers to do this, either.

The necessity that Paul explained was the cause for him to not bypass work was when he was in a situation where he could not otherwise demonstrate that he LOVED TO PREACH, and show that was not doing it to BE PAID. That does not mean a person who is paid to minister is unable to show that he actually loves ministering and is not in it for the money. He just said that his particular life was unable to show that except he abrogated support from the church.

Those here who are using this chapter to say a minister should work and not forego working, are missing the entire context, abusing its context, and are overlooking the plain and clear teaching that Paul allowed himself to forego the support of the church BY CHOICE, and not by demand of God, because any man can give up HIS RIGHT if he chose to. He could CHOOSE TO DEMAND an income, and no one can say he cannot do this, but he also can refuse to URGE it as Paul did. Is it proper for a church to demand a minister not receive HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS? NO! But a man can choose to not receive it.

Paul had a right to receive their support. But in his particular case, it would be abuse if he did, and the entire positive approval throughout the chapter of a minister's right to receive support from the church proves that it is not the normal requirement for all ministers to follow his example of abrogating his right to income.

(19).. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

He stresses how HE DID THIS TO HIMSELF, not because God demanded it.

(20).. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
(21).. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
(22).. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
(23).. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
(24).. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
(25).. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
(26).. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
(27).. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

He was keeping his body under in self denial at HIS OWN CHOICE, because he had to show that he loved ministering and did not do it for mere pay.

If I am incorrect, please quote the verse I refer to, show me the error that I made in my exegesis of the verse, indicate what the verse actually is teaching, and explain why you are correct in an exegetical manner.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I have also seen people being healed in the name of Jesus by the prayers of Trinitarians.

So does that mean trinitarians should not pray for healing of people because they're trinitarians? Your comparison is flawed as well as the logic behind it. When people give tithes and are blessed it is due to giving in FAITH which God always blesses! It is not because it is against the word of God as you are trying to make it out to be. It's ridiculous to say that it is against the word of God for Trinitarians to see healing by use of His name. But that is what you are implying when you compare what you believe about tithing with trinitarians praying successfully for healing.

Experiences are there because God is merciful and responds to faith, but it doesn't make the doctrine that it is in their head 100% correct.

Healing in Jesus' name by trinitarians is NOT MERCY on God's behalf. It is genuine fait that they hold and God is blessing them for their faith! Blessing for faith is not mercy. It is righteous. And saying that God does it in mercy despite their error of doctrine has nothing to do with why He blesses them with healing. The truth is that one can have erring doctrine of the godhead and that has nothing to do with faith for healing. No one would even think that healing endorses their doctrine, anyway! Your conclusions are as offkey in this issue as they are on tithing. No wonder you are against tithing because you use faulty logic and reasoning. Your posts are rife with it.

This makes you forced to say that it is wrong for trinitarians to pray for healing in Jesus' name, and somehow it is merciful for God to bless people who VIOLATE HIS WORD because they have faith. That makes no sense at all.


When people give tithes, they are doing so in faith when they are blessed, and are not necessarily legalistic nor are they necessarily bound to Old Covenant law of tithing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithemaster

[32] And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

[33] I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
[34] Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
[35] I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

[36] And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
[37] And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
[38] Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.

Paul clearly is saying to the elders of the church that we showed you how we worked with our own hands to support the church. He said he supported not only the weak in the church, but himself and they that were with him.

Am I not rrrrrrright? Am I in the proper context?

Yes or no?

No.

He did say that there would be wolves entering the flock later . . .

First of all, what is said here must harmonize with what 1 Cor 9 taught, while 1 Cor 9 clearly taught Paul did not say He he was demanded of God, as are all ministers, to forego receiving support from the church as I proved in my exegesis of 1 Cor 9.

So, what is Acts 20 saying?

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
(13).. 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.

The above passage Must be kept in mind when reading this:

Acts 20:[33] I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
[34] Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

Acts 4 shows us how the apostles had a huge responsibility on their shoulders to take what church members owned and gave, and distribute it where it would best fit. Paul would not take anything and make himself rich, as many ministers do today.

Paul did not covet money. He had no love of money.

Acts 20:[35] I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

His life was an example to support the weak and how it is more blessed to give, and he proved it. The weak are those who cannot support themselves. They are the poor. Giving to people like this is completely different than receiving an income from a congregation that Paul plainly stated was the right of those who preach the gospel. All of Paul's positive words about the law-confirming, God-ordained right for ministers to forego working outside the church defeats all that you are using Acts 20 to say. Acts 20 is as much word of God as 1 Cor 9. Therefore, the example of Acts 20 is not meant to say ministers should forego work, because he spoke directly opposite to that in 1 Cor 9. You believe it is wrong for people to give tithes today and is against the word of God. You believe it is wrong for a church to fully support a minister.

The example is to show how we must give and support the weak-- the needy who are poor and poverty-stricken.

If the church cannot support him, as was the case in my own personal ministry, I worked, and am actually working now outside our church. Paul said it is not a sin for him to work as he did. It's an entirely different perspective than that from which you are using this chapter to support the idea that no minister should forego work. You are ruining the context of Acts 20 in favour of further refusing the proper context of 1 Cor 9 to say Acts 20 proves that ministers should never forego work. It proves no such thing. Your conclusion makes a contradiction of 1 Cor 9.

Paul spoke also in terms of starting churches where it would be impossible to receive support solely from the church. There would not be enough. But when the church grew, the minister would then forego work as taught clearly in 1 Cor 9.

What Paul said here is what he explained in 1 Cor 9:15-18 as a CHOICE showing how much he gave of himself in Acts 20's context of thought, that he urged to no other minister.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So does that mean trinitarians should not pray for healing of people because they're trinitarians? Your comparison is flawed as well as the logic behind it. When people give tithes and are blessed it is due to giving in FAITH which God always blesses! It is not because it is against the word of God as you are trying to make it out to be. It's ridiculous to say that it is against the word of God for Trinitarians to see healing by use of His name. But that is what you are implying when you compare what you believe about tithing with trinitarians praying successfully for healing.

Sir, the way you go off topic is pretty annoying. Where did I say that trinitarians should not pray for the sick in Jesus name?

Healing in Jesus' name by trinitarians is NOT MERCY on God's behalf. It is genuine fait that they hold and God is blessing them for their faith! Blessing for faith is not mercy. It is righteous. And saying that God does it in mercy despite their error of doctrine has nothing to do with why He blesses them with healing.

Healing comes by the grace of God accessed by faith. God is responding to the giving, not to the obedience of 10% minimum. There is no promised blessing (or promised curse) based on the merits of obedience to tithing in the NT. You can't state that because someone is blessed in response to giving 10%, then the 10% doctrine must be right. That's what I said. You are going very off topic and saying nonsense things.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You have not stayed within context. I will show that this is the case with your belief.

The exegesis of this chapter will show that I have not pushed a preconceived bias about ministerial support as I have been accused of doing by using 1 Cor 9.


EXEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 9.

1 Corinthians 9:1-27
(1).. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
(2).. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
(3).. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
(4).. Have we not power to eat and to drink?
(5).. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
(6).. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

The concept Paul raises is how that he has as much right as the other apostles to receive sustenance -- food and drink -- during the course of his ministry as he does to be married with a wife, and forbear working.

Verse 6 sis the first indication of the error of those who propose the minister ought not forego working and should work....

So according to you, a teacher, who preaches the Gospel in your church when giving Bible studies, should be paid so he/she doesn't have to work?

Paul is contextualizing all of that passage to Apostles. That's my point.
You went off on topics I'm not talking about. Of course he is making the decision to not use his right. I don't argue that nor I say because he does so, all ministry must not take a salary.

[coksiw]

Mr Blume is apparently smarter than the apostles. The apostles taught about giving to support the weak and ministry, yet they didn't use the OT tithing to teach 10% of all income as they didn't find it applicable to the NT church. Blume, as others, are capable of creating doctrines the apostles did not discover. They create it from the notoriously absence of it in the NT. Not only that, Blume defends it vehemently.

The doctrine is this: the belief that tithing is the financial plan for the church to support ministry. Most tithing teachers use the OT to teach it, but Blume insists he doesn't, yet the concept is in the OT, so he does, but he doesn't, but he does.

It also takes a simple research to show the development of such false doctrine hundreds of years after the apostles. It is a post-apostolic doctrine. It can't be more clear than that.

The more I see a preacher who benefits from tithing directly or indirectly vehemently defending the modern tithing doctrine, the more their true colors come out. It is better for a tithing preacher to just walk away admitting their doctrine is weak, and messy, or even better, just admitting it is false.