Do we have to pay tithes?

[n david]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I do wanna say I'm not part of the ministry, so I have no bias one way or the other. All I can say is I always give God His first, and He supplies all my needs. I believe its a good practice it's tried and true in my walk, whether y'all agree or not. But I can see a lot of evidence that you should do it. Way more than, that I shouldn't. That's my stance.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Everyone agrees with you.

I believe people should give as Paul said in 2 Corinthians:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

My issue with tithing is there is not one NT command to the early church to give tithes as most churches do today. And Paul's words above say not to give "grudgingly" "or of necessity." The message linked to the OP is just that. The minister is demanding people give 10% tithes or they will go to hell.

When I paid 10% tithes as a younger man, I did so "of necessity," not because I wanted to. Not because I believed I should. I did it because I was taught that if I didn't pay tithes, what God didn't get in tithes He would make me pay in other ways. I wasn't told I would go to hell for not paying tithes, but I was told I would experience more trials and nothing I did would prosper. I was also told if I didn't pay tithes, I wouldn't be able to be used in the ministry or on the platform. (Hey, MWBs aren't the only one's excluded from ministry and the platform!)

So I paid out of necessity, compulsion, extortion, guilt, etc. I certainly wasn't a cheerful giver, especially since I was to tithe from my gross and not net.

That's why Paul says once to give according to your means, and in the verse above to give "according as he hath purposed in his heart."

Paul understood you have to pay the bills and take care of your family. I know ministers who have preached families onto food stamps and government assistance because they couldn't pay a full 10% and support their family.

That doesn't mean people get a pass to run up the bills and live beyond their means and then complain they don't have enough to live on once they give tithes/offering. People are to be good stewards - that includes living within your means.

I do agree that God blesses those who give cheerfully and abundantly. I do not agree that the 10% mandate is required of us today.

[n david]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Even verse 11 shows it "And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts."

The Levites had no inheritance, so they had no fields. They stood to profit off of the increase of the people, so they could attend to the work of the Tabernacle. I think what Gill is saying is the truth.

How did sin come into the whole world? By one man, Adam.

In the same way, the entire nation was cursed because of the sins of the priests. Because they robbed God, the entire nation was judged.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Selling cattle that were tithed was not lawful. The levites and priests were forbidden to do so.
Brother, do you remember when I told you that practically everything that you believe about tithes is false?
I thought I should remind you, one more time. This is another example. It was illegal to sell a tithed animal, unless it was unclean, and thus illegal to eat.



I have heard this story too, but it is not in the Bible, so if this was going on it was not legal to do. This is a fabrication, that was made up to make sense of why Jesus was so angry. I believe there is a better explanation, but that is a story for another thread.

It's part of history bro. And it may of been unlawful but thats not the issue here. The issue is that if I sell tomatoes and I owe you money. But I give you 5000 boxes of tomatoes instead, I can pay you in trade. So regardless of whether it was right or wrong that someone couldn't sell the livestock or the produce doesn't change the value of them. They had a cash value. So it the Levites wanted to, they could illegitimately sell them, because it was the samething as giving cash. Because it was worth something, whether it was sold or not. Doesn't take away the cash value of the animal or the produce.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

The Levites but as the scholar said "Kimchi observes, that in other sins charged upon the nation, the people were not all alike guilty, but in this which respected the tithes and offerings they were. " So they weren't bringing anything to fill up the storehouse. But apparently the Levites were taking the rest. Everyone, all, the whole nation, was robbing God. All the sons of Jacob as the text say's. Not just the sons of Levi. But also the sons of Levi, I'm not denying that.

What?

Bro, if you are talking about the Judeans they had NO ACCESS to the vaults. Also they couldn't distribute anything to the other Levites because it was done through genealogy. Bro, the people come under the curse through the failure of the Levites (teachers) not TEACHING. Those who are admonished to fill the vaults are the LEVITES, the people couldn't do it if they tried.
For the life of me I can't see how you proved the people weren't bringing anything to fill the vaults, because that wasn't their job to fill the vaults. If the prophet was speaking under the unction of God and wanted the people to bring anything He would of made it clear, by saying bring the whole tithe to the LEVITE!

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What?

Bro, if you are talking about the Judeans they had NO ACCESS to the vaults. Also they couldn't distribute anything to the other Levites because it was done through genealogy. Bro, the people come under the curse through the failure of the Levites (teachers) not TEACHING. Those who are admonished to fill the vaults are the LEVITES, the people couldn't do it if they tried.
For the life of me I can't see how you proved the people weren't bringing anything to fill the vaults, because that wasn't their job to fill the vaults. If the prophet was speaking under the unction of God and wanted the people to bring anything He would of made it clear, by saying bring the whole tithe to the LEVITE!

I'm not saying they had access to the vaults brother. I'm saying that they weren't even bringing anything to the house. And the leadership as you said was getting rid of what was coming in. So they all were guilty as the scholar says.
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house," Look at 11 too in light of what I'm saying "And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts." The Levites had no fields or inheritance.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

I'd like to address this issue first. I am calling this the Paul doctrine. I don't believe Paul is referring to tithes here. You asked for my opinion, so let me have at it. Just to tie this in with Brother Riggan, he says that Paul taught tithing and uses these scriptures. He says this at the one hour mark.

Is Paul talking about tithes here? I think not.

We know that Paul was well versed in the law. We also know that Paul was a Benjamite. Paul knew very well that he was not eligible to receive the tithe, because he was not a Levite. Paul also knew and contended that the Gentiles were not required to follow the law, this was established and confirmed both verbally and in writing as a result of the Council of Jerusalem. It is well established that there were four laws that were relevant to the Gentiles. These were prohibitions against fornication, eating blood, eating animals that had been strangled, and eating food offered to idols.

So Paul, knowing the law as he did, when he wanted to teach doctrine for supporting the ministry, talks about the ox?!

Why didn't he just quote the tithe law?

Why didn't he just talk about the Levites being supported by the tithe?

Why didn't he preach a sermon like Brother Riggan did?

Remember, he studied under Gamaliel. He was well-versed in the law. Yet he didn't just talk about the ox, he also talked about other professions . . .

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?

He talked about the soldier, the husbandman of the vineyard, and the shepherd. What do the ox, Paul and these professions all have in common?

Anybody know?

None of them were eligible to receive tithes under the law. So why was Paul comparing the ox and these other professions with the ministry? I believe he was saying that he was to be supported by the church, it was only right, ministers have to survive somehow right? We often hear these arguments. Paul was pleading the case based on logic, not on law.

Except for the ox. The ox was law. So the ox is special. So let's talk about the ox. The law against muzzling the ox served a fairly obvious cause. The ox was able to eat as much as he wanted. In this wise the ox was like the Levites, and the widow, and the strangers, and the fatherless.


Deut.26
[12] When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

Now these people and the ox, were all allowed to eat until they were satisfied. Let me ask a couple of questions about the ox.

Was the ox allowed to take all the wheat or barley back to the barn with him?

Was the ox allowed the tithe of the wheat or barley?

Was the ox allowed to sell the wheat or barley?

Paul wasn't known for being timid in his teaching. He was known for being well educated in the law. His education by Gamaliel was evidently a thing to be sought after. Yet the best he can do is talk about the ox and the soldier, and the shepherd, and the man over the vineyard?

Why was this the best he could do?

I believe it is because the tithing law could not be applied. Think about it.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm not saying they had access to the vaults brother. I'm saying that they weren't even bringing anything to the house. And the leadership as you said was getting rid of what was coming in. So they all were guilty as the scholar says.

The people who gave the Levitical tithe did not deliver it to the temple. They delivered it to the cities of the Levites IIRC. The Levites tithed a tenth of the tithe to the priests. The priests only received a tithe of the tithe.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I'd like to address this issue first. I am calling this the Paul doctrine. I don't believe Paul is referring to tithes here. You asked for my opinion, so let me have at it. Just to tie this in with Brother Riggan, he says that Paul taught tithing and uses these scriptures. He says this at the one hour mark.

Is Paul talking about tithes here? I think not.

We know that Paul was well versed in the law. We also know that Paul was a Benjamite. Paul knew very well that he was not eligible to receive the tithe, because he was not a Levite. Paul also knew and contended that the Gentiles were not required to follow the law, this was established and confirmed both verbally and in writing as a result of the Council of Jerusalem. It is well established that there were four laws that were relevant to the Gentiles. These were prohibitions against fornication, eating blood, eating animals that had been strangled, and eating food offered to idols.

So Paul, knowing the law as he did, when he wanted to teach doctrine for supporting the ministry, talks about the ox?!

Why didn't he just quote the tithe law?

Why didn't he just talk about the Levites being supported by the tithe?

Why didn't he preach a sermon like Brother Riggan did?

Remember, he studied under Gamaliel. He was well-versed in the law. Yet he didn't just talk about the ox, he also talked about other professions . . .

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?

He talked about the soldier, the husbandman of the vineyard, and the shepherd. What do the ox, Paul and these professions all have in common?

Anybody know?

None of them were eligible to receive tithes under the law. So why was Paul comparing the ox and these other professions with the ministry? I believe he was saying that he was to be supported by the church, it was only right, ministers have to survive somehow right? We often hear these arguments. Paul was pleading the case based on logic, not on law.

Except for the ox. The ox was law. So the ox is special. So let's talk about the ox. The law against muzzling the ox served a fairly obvious cause. The ox was able to eat as much as he wanted. In this wise the ox was like the Levites, and the widow, and the strangers, and the fatherless, and the strangers.


Deut.26
[12] When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

Now these people and the ox, were all allowed to eat until they were satisfied. Let me ask a couple of questions about the ox.

Was the ox allowed to take all the wheat or barley back to the barn with him?

Was the ox allowed the tithe of the wheat or barley?

Was the ox allowed to sell the wheat or barley?

Paul wasn't known for being timid in his teaching. He was known for being well educated in the law. His education by Gamaliel was evidently a thing to be sought after. Yet the best he can do is talk about the ox and the soldier, and the shepherd, and the man over the vineyard?

Why was this the best he could do?

I believe it is because the tithing law could not be applied. Think about it.

The reason why he said that was in the law the tithe was shared with the priest. So he was saying by the plan already set up, Paul also would benefit from the tithe. Like he said the offering goes straight to the church and the ministry. But the 3 tithes were to the priests, the feasts, and the poor.

Based on the Bibles explaination that's why he said Paul was teaching tithing. I'd have to say scripturally hes right. If God was saying they were robbing God of tithes and offerings, that's moral law that never fades away.

We don't know if Paul was teaching tithing or not truthfully. We have short letters that became what we call the NT. But they are letters written to certain people for specific reasons. I can say that if it ever was stealing from God and Holy unto the Lord it always will be. And I know that's Brother Riggens reasoning also.

He has drawn that conclusion from scripture of 2 or more. "That's line upon line, precept upon precept." It's enough to build doctrine off of I can see it. I don't believe Brother Riggen is saying this out of trying to twist the scripture. But out of trying to pull the truth out of the word of God the best we can get It today.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The people who gave the Levitical tithe did not deliver it to the temple. They delivered it to the cities of the Levites IIRC. The Levites tithed a tenth of the tithe to the priests. The priests only received a tithe of the tithe.

Where they took it doesn't change many people were involved. And what was coming in there, was getting stolen by whoever was in charge of the Levites. That's what im saying. Everyone was in the wrong and robbing God.

[1ofthechosen]

Tithesmaster I will say I didn't agree with the reference he made to Hebrews 7. As I can see this pastor elder Robert Davis has built his ministry off of. I think they are using that out of context just for the record.