A thought on tithing

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello TGBTG,

Thanks for your input.


I agree that the immediate reference in verse 13 was to the altar offering, but the overall context of the passage speaks to something bigger than that. He was referencing the underlying principle of the Levitical system, which was the tithe.
I think it's important to keep in mind where Paul starts in the passage and where he ends up. The purpose, of course, for the passage is to answer "them that do examine me". Examine him about what? Evidently he had already established with this congregation the need to support the ministry, specifically support of him. And there were those who were questioning this. Why and who? I think if we answer the "who" it will give us an answer to the "why".

Notice that Paul begins to build his case for ministerial support using general principles of sowing/reaping that everyone in the church- both Gentile and Jew- would be familiar with. So, in verse 7, we see him using examples of soldiers, farmers and shepherds. All of these are workman worthy of their hire. But then he moves from these examples to ones specifically from the Law (vs. 8-10). Now, who in the church would have been familiar with these? Gentiles (as a general rule) certainly wouldn't, but converted Jews and God-fearers would have. So, it was the Jewish contingent that would have questioned his motives and standing for asking for support. Why? Because- according to the Law- only the Levitical priesthood would've been entitled to ministerial maintenance.

Paul could not rightly demand the Levitical tithe. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, not Levi. But, based on the underlying principles that he'd already cited, he COULD argue the case based on the law of sowing/reaping- specifically- spiritual sowing and carnal reaping (vs. 11).

Now, knowing he can't rightly demand a Levitical tithe, he nonetheless makes his final appeal directly to that system, because (as he did with the previous examples) he's basing his argument on underlying principles. The underlying principle of vs. 13 was the tithe. And so, IN LIKE MANNER (even so) those who preach the gospel among them were to be supported even as the Levitical priesthood was supported: the tithe. Supported with the Levitical tithe? No, just a tithe.

I think you've just proved my point that this has EVERYTHING to do with tithe. All of that referenced in vs. 13 was to be brought to the altar specifically for the Levitical priesthood. IN LIKE MANNER, those who preached the gospel among them (the church) were to be supported.

This would be germane if Paul had been arguing for a Levitical tithe. But he wasn't, because he couldn't. What he COULD do was argue for a NT ministerial support system based upon the underlying principle of the former system.

Bro,

You and I both agree that Paul had the right to earn his living from support of the church. We are just disagree on the finer details as to what OT principle is Paul appealing to make his case.

In my study, I make a distinction between the right of the levite to temple sacrifices and the right of the levite to the tithe.

The levite did not have a right per se to the tithe. The children of Israel were to share their tithe with the levites because the levites were not allowed to possess any property.

Deut 14:27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

The language of Deut 14:27 shows that the children of Israel were instructed to not neglect the levites while they (children of Israel) were enjoying their tithes.

However, when it came to the spiritual work of offering sacrifices, ONLY the levites partook of the remnant of the sacrifices.The levites had EVERY right to partake of it because God said so.

So, my point in a nutshell is that the levite had the RIGHT (or power as Paul would put it) to the temple sacrifices.
While the children of Israel were expected to share their tithes with the levites, not that the levites had the RIGHT to those tithes.

If Paul was appealing to the principle of tithing, then "not paying tithe in the year of jubilee" would constitute a problem.

However, the right of the levite to the temple sacrifice was CONSTANT.

The levite performed spiritual work and he ate of his labor. Even so, the preacher of the gospel performs spiritual work and should eat of his labor.

Again, these are finer details, IMO, as we both agree that the preacher of the gospel has the right to be supported from the gospel.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I've been a pastor, I know what pastors do in the Romanist 'church' system. Generally speaking, the pastor is looking to increase membership at the building he calls 'the house of God', 'temple', 'tabernacle', ect, wishing to build something bigger and nicer than the building-based 'church' down the road and is a player of some sort in the organization in which he's licensed. He produces a one or two scripture sermon each week, visits the sick, interacts with the members of the church, marries them and buries them. In other words, he tries to be everything to everybody, growing a building (make sure you refer to the building as something holy when money is needed to support it) instead of simply operating in the church system which was introduced in the New Testament.

No, the Romanist building-based man made organization system wasn't introduced by God nor is it found in the New Testament church. The 'church' of today looks nothing like the church of the New Testament but instead has a strong resemblance to the very thing which God eliminated 2000 years ago.

Oh foolish Galatians who has bewitched you?

You've observed and experienced a very narrow definition of modern day church culture. There are many who aren't competing, or trying to build bigger barns, who are actually doing much good in their communities and for the Kingdom.

There's more right with the church than wrong with it.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

So you sold you house and live under a tree?

Bro Steve---I'm going to wager $400 and say....prolly not

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's a funny story. I attened a church that was big on tithing. Everyone in good standing tithed, everyone else had "robbed God".

Well, I was cited for needing to mow my lawn. The problem was, I didn't own a lawn mower. Not a single saint offered to lend me their lawn mower. And the pastor offered to put me up for prayer. lol

In house churches... we don't tithe. However, anything we own is at each others disposal. It's kinda nice.

That's par for the course. Be ye warm and filled.....

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

That's par for the course. Be ye warm and filled.....

You've been playing on the wrong course. Thats not par for our course and many other courses.

[AreYouReady?]

Well...bro deacon,

the courses I've had the unfortunate experience of playing on were just like what Aquila described. So yeah...I've been playing on the wrong course then.

I thank you for your contribution to the poor in the Name of Jesus in your area. My heart warmed when I read of all the things your particular church does and wants to do.

You know which churches in my region that do what your church does? The Catholics, (food pantry and outreach to hispanics) the Methodists (food pantry), the Episcopalians (addiction counseling), the Baptists (single, divorced and widow outreach/counseling)

The Jesus Name Pentecostals?


Except for one who has service translations for hispanics.

And don't ask what happened a person who tried to talk to a pastor about ideas for changing a few things...

I would love to be in a place of worship who care about outreach to the poor.

I would love to share in my groceries that I would buy extra of staples every weeks in an outreach pantry.

I would love to participate in a soup kitchen and hand out food to the hungry in a Jesus Name facility and let them know Christ is reaching out to them and loves them.

Until then, I take my donations to the Salvation Army.

Bless You Brother.

[tv1a]

The Bible shows how to discuss church business. If you do it the way the Bible outlines, you wouldn't have been spouting your opinion about a church you don't attend.

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Well houston, when I made that argument, a person here says he is concerned about people who think the Bill of Rights and the privilege of free speech supersedes the bible.

According to that logic, we should never discuss any church or it's activities.

[AreYouReady?]

Well Nitehawk, I listened to the YouTube you posted. I thought he made some very good points. He was rather humorous too.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyrrYitmHGE

LOL Awesome

[Truthseeker]

Tithers are not always givers, givers are not always tithers.