History of Tithes in the Church

[good samaritan]

never said it is "unbiblical to receive monetary offerings". Where did you get that?

Post 306
It's all about, and in this case, was only ever about, food. You can research what their daily allotment of food was. It is well-attested. I can give you some resources if you would like.

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

[good samaritan]

You ever think at least part of the reason you and/or your circles are so abused is because you bring it upon yourself?

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?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

(...continued)



One such example was the people of Thessalonica:

1 Thessalonians 1:9 (ESV),

9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you...

And why do you suppose Paul and his team's reception at Thessalonica was so well earned?

1 Thessalonians 2:5 and 9 (ESV),

5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness.

9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.



Paul wrote, as I shared above, that he and his team worked night and day, and yet, you think it is certain he didn't work 40+ hours per week? Don't you know he was a leatherworker who found opportunity to labor with his own hands while travelling abroad?

Acts 18:1-3 (ESV),

1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.

1 Corinthians 4:11 (ESV),

11 To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, 12 and we labor, working with our own hands.



Attempting to correctly understand and interpret and apply the Word of God according to its 1st century context is legalism?



I never said it is "unbiblical to receive monetary offerings". Where did you get that?

Several of the churches Paul founded raised a large sum of money for the saints in Judea and in Jerusalem (Romans 15:26). And Paul received money from the Philippians, as I explained above.

The question isn't whether or not money can be given and shared. The question is whether or not local prophets and teachers in residence are allowed by the Scriptures to receive an income in order to forbear working in any secular capacity, and whether or not that income should be raised by the local church through tithes. To both questions, the answer is no.

For the itinerant apostle or evangelist, Scripturally, the NT shows only the following: food, clothing, shelter/place to sleep/lodge, and funds for travelling along the way. And yet, Paul left us with an even better example: vocational craft while ministering.



And God cares about that???



You're correct. Paul didn't have any of those things, and yet, who, with those things, has done more than he?



So why make any effort to replicate 1st NT century doctrine, practice, and experience? Or do we just pick and choose and make it up as we go along? Thousands of denominations all in contention and disunity with each other. How do you suppose it got to be like this? By attempting to apply the Scriptures some other way every passing generation.



You apply it no more and no less than how the 1st century church applied the text. Adding to and taking away from the Word, isn't just inserting or removing lines of text from the Bible, it's about adding new applications, or taking away the applications that already exist in the Word.



Correct, if you want to go by the Book, Chapter, and Verse. If you want to do things your own way???



And what do you suppose that says about "practically everyone in modern church ministry"? All I did, is give the definition of the term.



No, being a hireling is determined by the definition of the word. It doesn't matter what anyone's intent is. If they are paid clergy, they are a hireling. That's the meaning of the term Jesus used in the Gospels.



You ever think at least part of the reason you and/or your circles are so abused is because you bring it upon yourself?



I wrote what I wrote because I know Mike Blume is Canadian and ministers there.

Oh wow, that was good. Thank you for sharing.

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

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.

There isn’t any direct NT commandment that institutes exact methodology on giving in the NT. The scriptures (old and new testaments) teach many principles about giving, but there is no exact instructions that the church is to follow. 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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

LOL, do you really think I'm going to keep wasting my time? Do you think I'll argue forever? I said enough already. Those that want to hear got plenty in this thread. You definitely are not one.

Weak response. I was told I would get an exegesis from Tithesmeister, and did not, and left that offer open to you as well. I wanted a simple thing. An exegesis of the passage showing where in the Word my views are contradicted and what they are saying instead. Not hard to do. Not provided yet. It's a full and proper discussion to do so. Wasting your time is just an excuse for what seems to be inability. I've seen this with those who contradict someone's posts frequently and always see the same response when asked for exegesis. Inability and excused for it. You've not said enough til you exegete the passage. These chats often slip away from objectivity into personal mockery. Many thanks to those who don't do that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It is therefore incomprehensible to think that Paul meant "to live of the Gospel" to mean anything other than a meal, some additional garments, and a place to stay while travelling.

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.

[Esaias]

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.

He addressed that already in one of his posts:

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the case that the priests who serve at the altar partake of the altar, meaning what? They are allotted a portion of the animal that was sacrificed. Again, it's about food, not money. Then Paul states that "in the same way" they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. It's about food. It's not about money for whatever need.

To take today's standard of economics and commerce and apply it retroactively to a situation 2,000 years ago is the very definition of shoe-horning and eisogesis. Per 1 Corinthians 9, Paul wouldn't recognize anything salaried ministers do with their income from the churches which pay them. He would expect only itinerate evangelists (not resident prophets and teachers) to receive a meal, some additional clothing as the need arose, a place to sleep, and at most, perhaps some extra funds for travelling to the next stop on the missionary journey. He wrote of nothing else. Suggested nothing else. Commanded nothing else. Taught nothing else.

There is then no grand-fathering a modern application into the text. The Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith do not work that way.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

As I have already said, it wasn’t IMO, Paul’s intent for his epistles to be made into regulatory laws ...

Oh but when it comes to the Sabbath "the NT epistles etc are regulatory laws", eh?

I am surprised that you cannot see that your entire system of belief has some serious, major, internal inconsistencies and flaws.

When it comes to the Sabbath "we go by the NT scriptures because that is the new law God gave to replace those OT laws". When it comes to pastoral salaries "welllllll, the NT scriptures aren't some kind of regulatory law that determines what is or isn't required."

How in the world can you not see the problems with that line of thinking? How can you not see that you are literally just making it up as you go according to what suits you? "I have to keep the Sabbath? Not so, the NT law contains no such command." "I can't take a salary for pastoring? Not so, the NT isn't some kind of law that we are bound to follow, we can just 'glean from the principles' to match our current situation."

On the one hand, you reject doing X because the NT doesn't say to do it. On the other hand, you reject Y because even though the NT says to do it, it doesn't fit your lifestyle, so the NT is canon law for X but just neat advice for Y?

Come on, man!

[good samaritan]

We are not under any of Mosaic law. The law of Moses was only for physical nation of Israel. The Old Testament leads us to Christ. The NT gives both principles and direct commands. We are to follow the direct commands and learn from the principles. Paul gave no direct command of systematic giving, but he did teach us to support preachers of the gospel, the flexibility is in how we do so.

He didn’t say anything at all about keeping the Sabbath. I highly doubt the gentile converts where keeping a Saturday Sabbath. Yet, we find zero instructions for that to be an issue. Yet, we read verses like this:

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We are not under any of Mosaic law. The law of Moses was only for physical nation of Israel.

So we can worship idols and commit adultery and anything else we want.

The NT gives both principles and direct commands. We are to follow the direct commands and learn from the principles.

Where does the Bible teach this?

He didn’t say anything at all about keeping the Sabbath. I highly doubt the gentile converts where keeping a Saturday Sabbath.

You should read Acts more closely then. And maybe learn about early church history.