There is no New Testament command to pay tithes

[Dino246]

All churches who practice tithing are wealthy.

That would naturally follow.

All churches who practice tithing are wealthy. Those who do not often struggle financially.

That's plausible. However, wealthy churches aren't a goal consistent with scriptural teaching.

If tithing is "not commanded" in the NT era, it certainly seem to have some positive effect. I guess that effect is not against God's law.

Do the ends justify the means? Not in my Bible, they don't.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I don't see how your concern has anything to do with this particular question though. Whether or not tax-exempt status is a good thing doesn't inform whether tithing is required of Christians.

Since large numbers of churches teach tithing and have also taken tax exempt status, when people make their charitable donations tax-deductible, it is no longer a tithe, but somewhat less. Both tithing and tax receipts go against Christian giving. At the same time freedom of worship and free speech are impacted. So overall we have a bad situation. On top of that some churches publicize the donations of their members, when the left hand is not even supposed to know what the right hand is giving.

 

[tribesman]

That would naturally follow.


That's plausible. However, wealthy churches aren't a goal consistent with scriptural teaching.


Do the ends justify the means? Not in my Bible, they don't.

I am not saying that wealthy churches automatically equals living churches or churches with sound doctrine, not necessarily so. However, as for the solely financial side of things, tithing have been proven being effective to catch up with financial difficulties. And I still have no reply to whether or not that "means" would be against the law.

 

[Live4Him]

From William Lane:

8 In the one case, mortal men(k) exact a tenth, but, in the other case, one to whom witness is borne that he lives.(l)

And in the footnotes:
k. In the anarthrous construction ἀποθνῄσκοντες ἄνθρωποι, which is virtually adjectival, the present tense of the ptcp is frequentative, i.e., it refers to an action that recurs from time to time. It, therefore, means “men who are to die, mortal men” (Moulton, Grammar, 1:114).
l. The expression μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ is described by Moule as “a bold and rather unusual way” of declaring “it is attested that he is alive” (Idiom-Book, 104–5).

From the commentary on verse 8-10

8 The second contrast between Melchizedek and the Levitical priests is drawn in v 8. The basis of the comparison remains that both the Levitical priests and the priest of Salem received tithes. The emphasis, however, has shifted from the question of qualification (v 3a, 5–6a) to that of the relative duration of their respective ministries. The two halves of the verse are set in sharp contrast by the construction καὶ ὧδε μὲν . . . ἐκεῖ δέ . . . , “in the one case . . . but in the other . . .” In v 8a the participle ἀποθνῄσκοντες, “mortal,” is placed before the noun it modifies to characterize the Levitical priests who receive tithes as mortal men. Those who are appointed to priestly service by the law are subject to death and so have a series of successors. Although the term δεκάτας, “tithes,” and the appropriate form of λαμβάνειν, “to receive,” are not repeated in v 8b, they are implied. It is this fact which justifies the application of the extraordinary ascription ὅτι ζῇ, “that he lives,” to Melchizedek. As the clause stands, all the emphasis falls on the startling assertion that Melchizedek is “one to whom witness is borne that he is alive.” The term μαρτυρούμενος, “witness is borne,” almost certainly has reference to Scripture (cf. v 17; 10:5). In this context the declaration must refer back to v 3, which the writer considered to be exegetically established on the basis of Ps 110:4 and Gen 14:18–20. Scripture announces of Melchizedek only his living and the administration of a priesthood that is free from temporal limitation (cf. Schröger, Verfasser, 143; Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 74–78; Demarest, History of Interpretation, 136). The basis of Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levitical priests in this second contrast is the “eternity” of Melchizedek predicated in v 3b, which has in view the perpetuation of his priestly office. The importance of this aspect of the argument will become clear in vv 15–16, where it is applied to the messianic priest. So far as the record of Scripture is concerned, Melchizedek has no end of life and his unique priesthood has no successor. But what is true of Melchizedek in a limited and literary sense is true absolutely of the one who serves his people as high priest in the presence of God (F. F. Bruce, 141–42).

9–10 The climax of the argument is reached in v 9 and qualified in v 10. It specifies the implication of the first contrast between Melchizedek and the Levitical priests (vv 5–6a) by deducing the deeper significance of the fact that Abraham allotted a tithe to Melchizedek (Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 23–24, 78). The literary phrase ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, “one might almost say,” was frequently used when a writer broke off the train of his thought and, not wishing to treat his theme more fully, would summarize as succinctly as possible what he had to say. Here it indicates the writer clearly recognized his statement that Levi had paid a tithe to Melchizedek was not literally true, because at the moment in primal history when Abraham met Melchizedek Levi was as yet unborn. Nevertheless, the statement that Levi had himself paid the tithe was true in an important sense, indicated by the expression διʼ Ἀβραάμ, “through Abraham,” which immediately follows. The corporate solidarity that bound Israel to the patriarch implied that Levi was fully represented in Abraham’s action. Therefore, Levi’s status relative to Melchizedek was affected by Abraham’s relationship to that personage. Consequently, the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood is not merely theoretical but has a basis in history (cf. Riggenbach, 190–91; Williamson, Philo, 107–9; Cockerill, Melchizedek Christology, 78–80). The assertion in v 9 is justified and explained in v 10, as shown by the explanatory conjunction γάρ, “because.” Although Levi was as yet unborn when Melchizedek met Abraham, the tithe Abraham gave to Melchizedek was a gesture that anticipated the subordination of Levi and the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood like Melchizedek’s that would be inaugurated at God’s appointed time.

Lane, William L.. Hebrews 1-8, Volume 47A (Word Biblical Commentary)

Well, as you bold-faced, "receives", PRESENT TENSE, is implied regarding him who lives, which is what I've been saying all along.

Basically, this is the "logic" that I'm hearing from at least one poster here:

1. Melchizedek the priest received tithes pre-law.
2. The Levitical priesthood received tithes under the law.
3. Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (who received tithes) after the law.
4. Therefore Jesus doesn't receive tithes.

To me, point 4 is an insane conclusion, yet that is what's being insisted here.

Anyhow, to each his/her own.

Unless some new point is introduced that I deem worthy of commenting on, I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Evmur]

Hi, Evmur.

May I ask what you mean by "Paul avoids the law like the plague"?

I ask because Paul (and others) regularly cited Old Testament passages of scripture as the basis for New Testament doctrine.

In fact, if anybody actually took the time to read my initial post here, then they'd see three clear-cut examples of the same in relation to money/giving.

Again, Paul said:

I Timothy chapter 5

[17] 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.

Again:

I Corinthians chapter 9

[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?
[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.

In the context of providing for God's ministers, Paul twice quoted from "the law" (Deut. 25:4) as the basis for his teaching.

Again, Paul said:

I Corinthians chapter 9

[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 alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Who is Paul talking about in verse 13?

Is he not talking about the Levitical priests who were sustained by the offerings brought into the temple?

Well, in the same way the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

What about this?

II Corinthians chapter 8

[1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
[2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
[3] For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
[4] Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
[5] And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.
[6] Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
[7] Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.
[8] I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
[9] For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
[10] And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
[11] Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
[12] For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
[13] For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
[14] But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
[15] As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

Contextually, the grace of God which was bestowed upon the churches in Macedonia was manifested BY THEIR GIVING, and not by their receiving (which is what we normally equate God's grace with).

Don't miss what Paul cited to show these tight-fisted Corinthians that God has desired equality among his saints all along.

His citation comes directly from "the law" or from the writings of Moses:

Exodus chapter 16

[15] And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
[16] This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.
[17] And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.
[18] And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.

Anyhow, although Paul didn't teach "the law" as the means for obtaining righteousness, he pretty regularly cited from the same in relation to New Testament doctrine.

Perhaps what I said is badly worded. But taking the Corinthian example why not simply say pay your tithes? for that is what Paul is describing except without the 10% cap. As you say we have not obtained God's favour by obeying the law, actually nor did the Jews, they obtained God's favour through election, simply because they were children of Abraham and Abraham gave tithes before there was any law. He gave out of the great abundance of blessing God had poured upon him, for Abe [and for us] giving is a matter of thanksgiving.

The law was introduced because of sin, because of sin the blessing dried up.

I believe in tithing ... as a starting point in giving. And the bible is never give, give, give [all that rubbish about giving and expecting nothing back] the bible is always "give and it shall be given unto you again ... good measure"]

God WANTS us to prosper and it is time christians knew it.

.... all India could be saved by now.

 

[Live4Him]

... all India could be saved by now.

...or at least missionaries could be financed by the church to go there.

We can't have any of that though, right?

Nah.

After all, people need their shiny new Cadillacs with personalized "BLESSED" license plates.

Then there's also the new PlayStation to buy for the kids, and the vacation to Disneyland to consider.

The empty food pantry (not counting the items that were possibly bought at the Dollar Store)?

The lack of diapers, formula, and clothing to give to Mom's in need?

The people who would be on the mission field if they could afford it?

Who cares about any of these things?

It's got nothing to do with ME, ME, ME!

I'M A KING'S KID, AND GOD JUST WANTS ME TO BE HAPPY!

"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? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (I Cor. 9:13-14)

It's been nice chatting with you.

 

[Evmur]

...or at least missionaries could be financed by the church to go there.

We can't have any of that though, right?

Nah.

After all, people need their shiny new Cadillacs with personalized "BLESSED" license plates.

Then there's also the new PlayStation to buy for the kids, and the vacation to Disneyland to consider.

The empty food pantry (not counting the items that were possibly bought at the Dollar Store)?

The lack of diapers, formula, and clothing to give to Mom's in need?

The people who would be on the mission field if they could afford it?

Who cares about any of these things?

It's got nothing to do with ME, ME, ME!

I'M A KING'S KID, AND GOD JUST WANTS ME TO BE HAPPY!

"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? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (I Cor. 9:13-14)

It's been nice chatting with you.

seems all doctrines have their hypers and all hypers are grotesque, caricaturist.

Never the less Jesus and Paul are one [as in all doctrine] plenteous giving will reap plenteous return.

... we don't want the old soldier routine do we?

 

[Live4Him]

seems all doctrines have their hypers and all hypers are grotesque, caricaturist.

Never the less Jesus and Paul are one [as in all doctrine] plenteous giving will reap plenteous return.

... we don't want the old soldier routine do we?

I don't know what you mean by "the old soldier routine".

Could you clarify?

 

[Evmur]

I don't know what you mean by "the old soldier routine".

Could you clarify?

... you know, dragging in, I did it all, gave up everything ... got nothing in return

 

[Live4Him]

seems all doctrines have their hypers and all hypers are grotesque, caricaturist.

Never the less Jesus and Paul are one [as in all doctrine] plenteous giving will reap plenteous return.

... we don't want the old soldier routine do we?

Regarding the "hypers", I deliberately mentioned one of the extremes in order to make a point.

As I said in my first post on this thread, I've seen BOTH extremes, and they're equally wicked as far as I'm concerned.

In other words, I've seen where the tithe is pushed constantly to fleece the flock, and I've also seen where congregants have no concern for their fellowman whatsoever.

Anyhow, that "hyper" response of mine wasn't meant as some sort of rebuke towards you.

Instead, I deliberately spring-boarded off of something you said in order to make a point concerning one extreme.

 

[Live4Him]

... you know, dragging in, I did it all, gave up everything ... got nothing in return

Thanks for your clarification.

I'd never heard that before.

 

[Evmur]

Regarding the "hypers", I deliberately mentioned one of the extremes in order to make a point.

As I said in my first post on this thread, I've seen BOTH extremes, and they're equally wicked as far as I'm concerned.

In other words, I've seen where the tithe is pushed constantly to fleece the flock, and I've also seen where congregants have no concern for their fellowman whatsoever.

Anyhow, that "hyper" response of mine wasn't meant as some sort of rebuke towards you.

Instead, I deliberately spring-boarded off of something you said in order to make a point concerning one extreme.

nothing tests the heart like money, not only having it but also when we've got nothing but the clothes we walk in ... I've experienced both. But God's will is that we prosper.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

All churches who practice tithing are wealthy. Those who do not often struggle financially.

If tithing is "not commanded" in the NT era, it certainly seem to have some positive effect. I guess that effect is not against God's law.

So wealth is a determiner of being correct? So then Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar, and the likes are correct and good? Not hardly.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

nothing tests the heart like money, not only having it but also when we've got nothing but the clothes we walk in ... I've experienced both. But God's will is that we prosper.

I guess that depends on what you mean by prosper. Maybe like the Christians in africa who pay for their faith with their lives, or often enslaved, or the Brothers in Asia who pay with life in prison.
The prosperity doctrine is an abominable heresy perpetuated by false prophets, and wolves fleecing the flock.

 

[Evmur]

I guess that depends on what you mean by prosper. Maybe like the Christians in africa who pay for their faith with their lives, or often enslaved, or the Brothers in Asia who pay with life in prison.
The prosperity doctrine is an abominable heresy perpetuated by false prophets, and wolves fleecing the flock.

Yes prosperity brings persecution. Interesting to look at a map of Africa or of the world, which nations are prospering or are beginning to prosper and which still drag in the dirt.

Wherever the gospel has gone and been received, wherever the church has taken root, prosperity has followed in it's train.

"God willest above all things that we mayest be in health and prosper even as our souls prospereth"

Jesus and Paul preached prosperity.

People as do not prosper in their souls will not prosper any other wise either.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Yes prosperity brings persecution. Interesting to look at a map of Africa or of the world, which nations are prospering or are beginning to prosper and which still drag in the dirt.

Wherever the gospel has gone and been received, wherever the church has taken root, prosperity has followed in it's train.

"God willest above all things that we mayest be in health and prosper even as our souls prospereth"

Jesus and Paul preached prosperity.

People as do not prosper in their souls will not prosper any other wise either.

and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
1 Timothy 6:5‭-‬9 ESV

 

[Dino246]

Since large numbers of churches teach tithing and have also taken tax exempt status, when people make their charitable donations tax-deductible, it is no longer a tithe, but somewhat less. Both tithing and tax receipts go against Christian giving. At the same time freedom of worship and free speech are impacted. So overall we have a bad situation. On top of that some churches publicize the donations of their members, when the left hand is not even supposed to know what the right hand is giving.

I see your point with regard to freedom of speech, but I don’t see how tax receipts are a problem. The church receives the same amount of money regardless. Plus, tithing is an OT requirement, not an NT requirement, and people should not be giving legalistically.

 

[MattforJesus]

The verses about laying aside a collection on the first day of the week are about giving donations to Jerusalem, not a general commandment to the church to pay tithes or support the salary of the head preacher.

If we are to actually follow the Biblical example then most congregations have been doing it wrong for a long time. These collections were to send back to Jerusalem at the time these letters were wrote.

1 Corinthians 16:1-4
1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 3And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. 4And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

Churches have expenses and bills. If they need money then ask the congregation to prayerfully decide if they can financially support the ministry with a cheerful heart.

Under no circumstances should church leadership start quoting the law of Moses about paying tithes. Nor give examples of people who made large donations to the church while ignoring the stories of people who went bankrupt believing God owed them a blessing for giving their life savings away.

Rather, God loves a cheerful giver who gives as he purposes in his heart. God loves that we do things from a place of love and cheerfullness.

2 Corinthians 9:7
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

It does not matter tithes or not because we can only go by our needs and to help other people with their needs if possible.

So while some people do not like to pay 10 percent because they want their money to go towards their wants you only get to go by your needs because the love of people is greater than the love of money in the kingdom of God.

God only blesses us with our needs not our wants.

The early Church sold all they had that was not a necessity and distribution was made to the poor.

Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil because it neglects the poor and needy and love is the fulfilling of the law which includes taking care of their needs.

John said that if a person has this world's goods and does not help the poor and needy then the love of God does not dwell in them.

Jesus told the rich man to sell all he has and give to the poor then he could inherit eternal life because love is the fulfilling of the law.

God loves people and for them to have their needs and not blessing the saints with money for their wants.

The Bible says the saints appear poor to the world because they only get to go by their needs.

Paul said he only went by his necessities and not his wants.

 

[Musicmaster]

Many churches teach that Christians are commanded to give a minimum of 10% of our income to our church. Others teach that preachers of these churches are turning the 10% tithe under the old covenant for Israel into a monetary legalistic prescription for Christians under the new covenant. I even heard a Pastor make a challenge to his congregation to give 10% of their income for 90 days and if God does not bless them then he will give them their money back.

In 2 Corinthians 9:5-7 we read: Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren to go to you ahead of time, and prepare your generous gift beforehand, which you had previously promised, that it may be ready as a matter of generosity and not as a grudging obligation. But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.

I don't see a "specific percentage" given anywhere for Christians to give under the new covenant, but I certainly believe in giving and not just to our church. I also believe that everything we own belongs to God and we certainly can't out give God.

Let's examine this more carefully:

When that "giving" is handed over to a church organization, most of which utilize the largest portion of that giving for the support of the facility and its staffing, with only the leftovers going to meet genuine needs of fellow believers and the needy in the local community...if any...how is that "giving"? Where does scripture even suggest the idea that it's "giving" when handing that over to something from which the members directly benefit? Folks, THAT is not GIVING. It's paying your dues as you would the Lion's Club, the Moose Lodge and Elk's Club, the Masonic Lodge, et al.

When I give to the needy some food, gas in their car, provide roof repair for their home, or even shelter from the extreme cold (rather than money that can be used for the many vices so many of them are hooked upon), I get nothing back in return on this earth by way of benefit or direct compensation. I store up treasure in Heaven.

The LUXURY of "church" buildings and paid, professional staffing to do our work of ministry for us, vicariously, rather than you and I dirtying our hands with it, that's all pure luxury, not necessity!

So, if we're going to speak about the giving exemplified in the NT scriptures, let's deal with ALL of it on the level of intellectual honesty. Historic antiquity of a practice and belief doesn't legitimize them. The only legitimization at which we may point is the acid test of scripture.

Come, now. Let's all be honestly consistent with what scripture really shows to us.

MM

 

[tribesman]

So wealth is a determiner of being correct? So then Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar, and the likes are correct and good? Not hardly.

No and you may include the LDS Church there too. But, that was not the point. The point was that all churches that do tithing are well off financially. Got me?