Do we have to pay tithes?

[1ofthechosen]

Hey what do you take from 1 Timothy 5:17-18 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

[1ofthechosen]

Eb are you here?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Hey what do you take from 1 Timothy 5:17-18 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

Context is always important. Read the whole chapter and tell me what you think it means. Always look for the whole story. Sometimes the whole idea can be encapsulated in one or two scriptures but it often is not. Sound bite theology often leads to theology that is not sound, and theology that is not sound can come back to bite you.

Just for an example, the book of Job. You really have to read nearly the whole book to get the picture. Other times, such as often is the case in Proverbs, one verse is sufficient, and can even be all you get.

Focus on honour.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Context is always important. Read the whole chapter and tell me what you think it means. Always look for the whole story. Sometimes the whole idea can be encapsulated in one or two scriptures but it often is not. Sound bite theology often leads to theology that is not sound, and theology that is not sound can come back to bite you.

Just for an example, the book of Job. You really have to read nearly the whole book to get the picture. Other times, such as often is the case in Proverbs, one verse is sufficient, and can even be all you get.

Focus on honour.

That's what I'm focused on. What does it mean in light of "Honour" being the word translated. But in the context the Greek word "timē" or "τιμή" is defined as by Thayer "a valuing by which the price is fixed." James Strong says "a value that is money paid or (concretely and collectively) valuables." I stopped earlier because in context of verse 18 that is the message Paul is conveying. Especially saying "especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Labor means to work, and that's why he comes with the samething he did in 1 Corinthians 9. By saying in verse 17-18 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."


See you went straight on the defensive so I know you see it!! You didn't answer my question. What do you take from it?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

That's what I'm focused on. What does it mean in light of "Honour" being the word translated. But in the context the Greek word "timē" or "τιμή" is defined as by Thayer "a valuing by which the price is fixed." James Strong says "a value that is money paid or (concretely and collectively) valuables." I stopped earlier because in context of verse 18 that is the message Paul is conveying. Especially saying "especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Labor means to work, and that's why he comes with the samething he did in 1 Corinthians 9. By saying in verse 17-18 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. [18] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."


See you went straight on the defensive so I know you see it!! You didn't answer my question. What do you take from it?

Brother, you missed my point entirely. I am not on the defense, I was trying to guide you to some truth. I asked you to focus on "honour" and read the whole chapter. You either didn't do so, or you missed it. I am entirely capable of going on the offensive with you. Is that going to help you learn? Or is it going to make you close your mind?

I posted on the fallacy of Brother Riggen's moral law, because my post exposes it three times for being false. Did you read the post? Or do you already know what you want to believe?

Do you want me to spoon feed you? Or would you rather discover it for yourself?

Here is another hint. Honour occurs twice in the chapter.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, you missed my point entirely. I am not on the defense, I was trying to guide you to some truth. I asked you to focus on "honour" and read the whole chapter. You either didn't do so, or you missed it. I am entirely capable of going on the offensive with you. Is that going to help you learn? Or is it going to make you close your mind?

I posted on the fallacy of Brother Riggen's moral law, because my post exposes it three times for being false. Did you read the post? Or do you already know what you want to believe?

Do you want me to spoon feed you? Or would you rather discover it for yourself?

Here is another hint. Honour occurs twice in the chapter.

By the way brother they are not the same Greek word! 5:3 "Honour widows that are widows indeed." This honour is "timaō" or "τιμάω". But in 5:17 the honour there is "timē" or "τιμή". Which means "a valuing by which the price is fixed." Or as James Strong said "a value that is money paid or (concretely and collectively) valuables". That fits in the context of 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"; otherwise it makes no sense. And I don't care how anointed you are, no one can eat off of "honour". While it would be nice it won't keep anyone fed! Your missing the whole point! I read the whole chapter, but it doesn't take away from what Paul is showing by referencing what he did earlier in 1 Corinthians 9.

So what are you going to do with that? And where is the post about the moral law? I can't find it. I already know what the truth is because "God, performs His word with signs and wonders." And I have no complaints, because I am a co-laborer to Him.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

That does not justify promoting false doctrine.

Bro, giving is never a false doctrine.

Even the rankest sinner understands that.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

By the way brother they are not the same Greek word! 5:3 "Honour widows that are widows indeed." This honour is "timaō" or "τιμάω" meaning "to estimate, fix the value, to, honour, to have in honour, to revere, venerate." But in 5:17 the honour there is "timē" or "τιμή". Which means "a valuing by which the price is fixed."

So what are you going to do with that? And where is the post about the moral law? I can't find it. I already know what the truth is because "God, performs His word with signs and wonders." And I have no complaints, because I am a co-laborer to Him.

The same word has slightly different meanings as described by Strong's Concordance. The honour due the widow is to prize, to fix a valuation upon; by implication to revere, honour, value.

In the example of the elder who serves well deserves double honour the definition is Strong's Concordance 5092; a value, ie money paid, valuables; by anal. esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself:-honour, precious, price, some.

The semantics are slightly different as you would expect, one being an elder man who rules or oversees well, the other being an older woman who is verified by her service.

In either case the honour is very similar, both being esteemed, both being assessed a value and both being honored.

The difference in the definition being so slight that it did not show up in the translation into English may be merely the semantics that are involved with one of the subjects obviously being male and the other female. There would have certainly been a difference that would have been the result of the cultural and even scriptural difference that applies, even as it does today.

It is likely, in my opinion, that both were possibly eligible to receive assistance from the church as well as the esteem, honor etc.. The obvious difference is that there is a relationship numerically. Whatever the meaning of honour, the widow is worthy of half as much of it as the elder, or the elder is worthy of twice as much as the widow. This relationship is mathematical.

Another common factor in the valuing of the two is that Timothy was to exercise judgement as to whether they were worthy. The widow that is a widow indeed and the elder that rules well. By implication, there will be widows that are not widows indeed, as well as elders that rule poorly, these would not be worthy of honour or double honour. this would, of necessity imply that the honour would not be automatic.

I hope this helps. The post on moral law is #203.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, giving is never a false doctrine.

Even the rankest sinner understands that.

Would you agree that giving can be done as a result of false doctrine?

Would you agree that all giving is not equally pleasing to God?

Matthew (is it chapter twenty five?) tells us what giving to Jesus looks like.

Would you agree that there is cheerful giving versus fearful giving?

I think I know the answer.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Would you agree that giving can be done as a result of false doctrine?

Would you agree that all giving is not equally pleasing to God?

Matthew (is it chapter twenty five?) tells us what giving to Jesus looks like.

Would you agree that there is cheerful giving versus fearful giving?

I think I know the answer.

If you are paying your tithes out of fear, then I doubt God honors that anyway.