There is no New Testament command to pay tithes

[Musicmaster]

Guess what, folks. If and when the economy of this nation collapses and the membership heads down to what they thought was the storehouse of God, the doors will be locked against them entering because that place wasn't a storehouse for the needs of only a few, if any. The staffing will likely cart off whatever was stored in those places for their own families. The rest of the membership will be left with having to break in, only to discover that there's nothing for them.

So, if that was giving to God and into His storehouse, as is preached from many a pulpit, the reality will hit the membership right between the eyes that they had sewn into something that had nothing to give back by way of nutritional sustenance in hard times that could sustain life. They will see that it was not so much a storehouse, but rather a huge sponge with an insatiable appetite for their money. Stewardship will be seen as just a nice sounding word they used from pulpits to brow-beat the membership into sacrificial giving into something that looked mostly to its own interests and comforts.

So, next week, when the plate is passed around, keep in mind that you may want to avoid being seen as "worse than an infidel" by using that "tithe" to purchase some extra food storage in your home for hard times so that those of your own household will have something that they will not be able to count on from their "church." Seeing to the needs of your own house is utmost in your responsibilities toward your own family.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

So, what's it going to be? "Give" to your luxuries, or prepare for the needs of your own house, and therefore avoiding denial of the faith in Christ Jesus we're supposed to practice daily?

MM

 

[presidente]

Jesus mentioned tithes in Matthew 23, saying 'these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone.'

They should have paid tithes of those herbs/leaves, but not forsaken the weightier matters of the law- justice, mercy, and faith. But Jesus was referring to the Biblical tithe paid into the Levitical priestly system, not the later tithe that would be developed to pay to the church.

I would imagine the earliest Christians did pay tithes... which supported the temple. The church was supported by other giving.

The idea of the non-Levite preacher demanding tithes of people that the scriptures do not require is problematic. Verses from the OT are selectively used in an allegorical manner.

Also, the instructions for tithe include tithing plants. What if someone came to church and plopped some tomatoes into the tithe and offering plate? He/she could put them in the tithe envelope first. If you harvested crops in the OT, you gave a tenth of the crops. There is a passage that says that those who live far away from the place the Lord would choose could sell their grain for silver, then go there and buy whatever their heart lusted for, food, wine, and strong drink and consume it before the LORD your God. If people in the congregations were to interpret verses on tithes consistent the way some of the tithe preachers were interpreting other verses, they would go into the sanctuary with chilidogs, potato chips, and beer, and drink it during the service.

Some of these preachers say God __only__ asks for 10%. If someone believes that and tithes, and he see a brother with no food or clothing, and gives nothing, he feels justified, but how does the love of God dwell in him? God may require more than 10% from some, but demanding 10% from those who do not have enough to eat is cruel. In the Old Testament, widows, the fatherless, Levites, and strangers __received tithes__ every third year. The preaching of some would leave the poor widow and refugee who cannot fend for him or herself under obligation to give 10%, and if the church does not offer them some support, isn't that cruel?

 

[Platosgal]

You can say that again.

Is it possible that the "Reset" that is occurring is to create the home churches and dismantle false big box Christianity?

 

[Musicmaster]

Jesus mentioned tithes in Matthew 23, saying 'these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone.'

You're right. He did mention tithing, and the requirement to tithe for those, at that time, who were still under the law. Remember; the Cup of the New Covenant had not yet been passed to mankind at the "Last Supper." Jesus also told one of the men He had healed to go and offer the burnt offerings and sacrifices for his healing. We don't see people mentioning that for today, mainly because there's no financial benefit from it for "church" organizations.

...But Jesus was referring to the Biblical tithe paid into the Levitical priestly system, not the later tithe that would be developed to pay to the church.

Where do you see such a thing in the Bible in relation to man-made "church" organizations?

I would imagine the earliest Christians did pay tithes... which supported the temple. The church was supported by other giving.

Can you show to me where all those believers who had no livestock, crops, or even gardens, paid a tithe for the support of the temple? In other words, where was the requirement for that? The biblical tithe never had anything to do with wages being paid to the temple or the Levites. There were offerings of gold and coins at the temple, but not tithes. I would have to see that to believe it...without someone adding to the text what isn't there. The Gentiles in all the Roman provinces didn't send anything in support of the temple.

The idea of the non-Levite preacher demanding tithes of people that the scriptures do not require is problematic. Verses from the OT are selectively used in an allegorical manner.

You got that right. Pointing at Malachi is the sin of comparison and omission from pulpits, books and video teachings where that lying trash comes from.

Also, the instructions for tithe include tithing plants. What if someone came to church and plopped some tomatoes into the tithe and offering plate? He/she could put them in the tithe envelope first. If you harvested crops in the OT, you gave a tenth of the crops. There is a passage that says that those who live far away from the place the Lord would choose could sell their grain for silver, then go there and buy whatever their heart lusted for, food, wine, and strong drink and consume it before the LORD your God. If people in the congregations were to interpret verses on tithes consistent the way some of the tithe preachers were interpreting other verses, they would go into the sanctuary with chilidogs, potato chips, and beer, and drink it during the service.

The problem with this is going back to the law. Dare one attempt obedience to the law, and they make themselves beholden to obey it ALL the law, and obey it perfectly...which no man can do. Such people would then be held guilty of it all, having fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Some of these preachers say God __only__ asks for 10%. If someone believes that and tithes, and he see a brother with no food or clothing, and gives nothing, he feels justified, but how does the love of God dwell in him? God may require more than 10% from some, but demanding 10% from those who do not have enough to eat is cruel. In the Old Testament, widows, the fatherless, Levites, and strangers __received tithes__ every third year. The preaching of some would leave the poor widow and refugee who cannot fend for him or herself under obligation to give 10%, and if the church does not offer them some support, isn't that cruel?

Realistically, it matters not one bit what they did under the law, because the tithe was tied directly to the temple and its priesthood. We have no such ties today, and yet people keep wanting to go back under the bondage of the law, which is the letter that kills.

MM

 

[presidente]

Where do you see such a thing in the Bible in relation to man-made "church" organizations?

I was talking about the traditional tithe, from later, extraBiblical church tradition, not the Biblical one.

Can you show to me where all those believers who had no livestock, crops, or even gardens, paid a tithe for the support of the temple? In other words, where was the requirement for that?

In Acts 21 for example, James mentioned how many Jewish believers there were who were zealous for the law. A chapter later, Paul would describe Ananias, who baptized him, as deeply devoted to the law. In an earlier chapter, we read that many priests were obedient to the faith. Jesus had taught of the scribes and Pharisees 'Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."

Early in Acts, believers were selling off fields and possessions. I do not know if they all sold everything or if newer batches of converts later in Acts, located in Jerusalem, had sold off all their lands to support the other saints in the church. If they sold off their lands, they probably would not have had any tithes to pay. But before they sold their lands in Acts, and any who had lands after would have been required by the law of Moses to pay tithes of the crops and herds. So if no single Christian Jew in the holy land owned land, then you may have a valid point. Otherwise, if they were devout according to the law, they most likely did pay the tithes required in the Old Testament.

They did not stop being Jews were observing the law (attempting to do so) because they were Christians. This is apparent from the book of Acts.

The biblical tithe never had anything to do with wages being paid to the temple or the Levites. There were offerings of gold and coins at the temple, but not tithes. I would have to see that to believe it...without someone adding to the text what isn't there. The Gentiles in all the Roman provinces didn't send anything in support of the temple.

I am assuming Jewish farmers still paid tithes according to the law of Moses in second temple Judaism. There is probably some material on this. I cannot think of any off the top of my head. There was also a temple tax. At certain points in history, Rome misappropriated that.

The problem with this is going back to the law. Dare one attempt obedience to the law, and they make themselves beholden to obey it ALL the law, and obey it perfectly...which no man can do.

I do not know where you get this. Paul made this argument about 'if ye be circumcised....' Judaizers would try to persuade Gentiles to convert to Judaism and relate to God through the law of Moses. A Gentile believer in Christ doing so would be putting his trust in the law to justify him, rather than putting his trust in Christ. But Paul did not try to convince Jewish believers not to follow the law. He encouraged the one called in uncircumcision to remain in uncircumcision and the one in circumcision not to seek to become uncircumcised. Paul paid the expenses of some men going into the temple to fulfill a vow at the request of the elders who encouraged him to do so to demonstrate that he did not teach Jews not to circumcise their children or not to obey the law. Paul had cut his own hair in Cencrea, for he had made a vow, so he may have been going to the temple with them to fulfill his own obligations in the temple and go through the rituals as well. If Egyptians were still hairless in the first century (the royals weren't) it could be that he was mistaken for an Egyptian because he'd just had a Nazarite cutting and shave.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

The law says do not murder. If you do not murder someone, does that mean you have fallen from grace? If you do not eat pork, have you fallen from grace? If you never eat ostrich, have you fallen from grace?

There is an issue of trying to be justified by the law here, not just keeping an Old Testament commandment, intentionally or incidentally.

 

[Dino246]

Under the Sinai covenant, tithes were only required of two things: crops and domestic animals. The landowners, which initially was all Israelites, were to bring one-tenth of their crops, and every tenth animal (see Leviticus 27). There is no command for anyone else to tithe, so there was never a tithe required of day labourers, hired workers, fishermen, or hunters. These could make offerings though, and were encouraged and commanded to do so.

In the early Church under the new covenant, very few were landowners, many were poor, some were slaves. There is no command given to the Christian church to give tithes of anything to anyone, and Christians are not under the Mosaic law, as Paul emphasizes in many places. Instead, Christians are encouraged to give:

regularly (1 Corinthians 16:2)
as we are able (2 Corinthians 8:12)
as we determine in our hearts (2 Corinthians 9:7)
cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:7)
generously (Romans 12:8)
in love (1 Corinthians 13:3)
with forethought (2 Corinthians 9:5)
as the Lord has given to us (1 Corinthians 16:2)
to the poor and needy (James 2:14-18)
to support those who serve in the work of ministry (1 Timothy 5:17-18)

Further, there are examples of giving:

to meet the needs of fellow Christians (Acts 4:35)
sacrificially (2 Corinthians 8:3)
all (they) had to live on (Luke 21:4)

We are not to give:

to earn anything from God (Romans 11:35)
to look good to others (Matthew 6:1-4)
grudgingly (2 Corinthians 9:5)
reluctantly (2 Corinthians 9:7)
or under compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:7)

There is no possible way to teach that Christians are required to "tithe" without putting them under compulsion!

We are not required, commanded, or even encouraged to pay tithes to our local church, and indeed, it is impossible to do so and be biblically sound about it, because there are no Levites to receive the crops and animals we might bring. However, if we follow the instructions that are provided in the New Testament, we will give plenty, the church will be well supplied, and the poor among us will have their needs met. Any call to a specific percentage is a call to legalism; there simply is no percentage in Scripture for Christian giving.

 

[Musicmaster]

I was talking about the traditional tithe, from later, extraBiblical church tradition, not the Biblical one.

I may have confused that with where you did mention and talk about the biblical tithe.

In Acts 21 for example, James mentioned how many Jewish believers there were who were zealous for the law. A chapter later, Paul would describe Ananias, who baptized him, as deeply devoted to the law. In an earlier chapter, we read that many priests were obedient to the faith. Jesus had taught of the scribes and Pharisees 'Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."

Yes, it makes sense Jesus upheld the law to the people who were still under the law before the inception of the New Covenant.

Early in Acts, believers were selling off fields and possessions. I do not know if they all sold everything or if newer batches of converts later in Acts, located in Jerusalem, had sold off all their lands to support the other saints in the church. If they sold off their lands, they probably would not have had any tithes to pay. But before they sold their lands in Acts, and any who had lands after would have been required by the law of Moses to pay tithes of the crops and herds. So if no single Christian Jew in the holy land owned land, then you may have a valid point. Otherwise, if they were devout according to the law, they most likely did pay the tithes required in the Old Testament.

Most of the people were not the wealthy land owners. Most were laborers and craftsmen, none of whom were required to hand anything over to the Levites. The Gentile believers who were far greater in number than the Jewish converts by the time Paul went on his second missionary journey, they who had lands sold some to have sustenance to hand over to provide for the needs of fellow believers. It makes no sense that the believers sold "all" they had, and therefore impoverishing themselves out into the gutters only to become additional burdens upon the local Church. The Gentile believers did take up collections to be sent to the Jewish believers when the great persecutions began in that region, but none of that is known to have been given for the temple since that building no longer had any meaningful significance with the Lord's presence no longer filling that place.

They did not stop being Jews were observing the law (attempting to do so) because they were Christians. This is apparent from the book of Acts.

We don't know what that entailed for the the Jewish believers to be zealous for the law. All we can is speculate. What we can know is that their zeal wasn't a matter of them trying to go back to any attempt at placing themselves under the law. Doing so was a matter of falling from grace. Paul made that abundantly clear in Galatians 5.

Again, tithing only had to do with the Levites and the temple, and never was it wages from those who did not possess anything from which the tithe was required by the law. We can both probably agree with this.

I am assuming Jewish farmers still paid tithes according to the law of Moses in second temple Judaism. There is probably some material on this. I cannot think of any off the top of my head. There was also a temple tax. At certain points in history, Rome misappropriated that.

We saw what Jesus thought about the temple tax, which was to have a coin extracted from a slimy fish's mouth handed over to those collecting such a tax.

I do not know where you get this. Paul made this argument about 'if ye be circumcised....' Judaizers would try to persuade Gentiles to convert to Judaism and relate to God through the law of Moses. A Gentile believer in Christ doing so would be putting his trust in the law to justify him, rather than putting his trust in Christ. But Paul did not try to convince Jewish believers not to follow the law. He encouraged the one called in uncircumcision to remain in uncircumcision and the one in circumcision not to seek to become uncircumcised. Paul paid the expenses of some men going into the temple to fulfill a vow at the request of the elders who encouraged him to do so to demonstrate that he did not teach Jews not to circumcise their children or not to obey the law. Paul had cut his own hair in Cencrea, for he had made a vow, so he may have been going to the temple with them to fulfill his own obligations in the temple and go through the rituals as well. If Egyptians were still hairless in the first century (the royals weren't) it could be that he was mistaken for an Egyptian because he'd just had a Nazarite cutting and shave.

Well, let's see what is written:

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The bondage of which Paul was speaking is understood to be the law of Moses. This was written to both the Gentile and Jewish believers in Galatia.

Galatians 5:2-4

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So, the Gentiles who bought into what those wicked Judaizers told them, that they must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved, it is put in its place. Acts 15 is a great study on all that. Seeking to obey the law, whether it be Jews or Gentiles, it had the same damning effect upon both. Zeal for the law in the manner spoken of in the scriptures, in light of the warning against living by the law, leads us to believe that they were simply selecting those portions of the law that they so desired to uphold as a lifestyle rather than a justifying requirement on the grounding of a works-based salvation. It can be a lifestyle choice for diet and such, yes. I too am zealous for the law in that I fully understand that the law is righteous. I also understand that our righteousness is based upon our faith in Christ Jesus who fulfilled the perfect obedience to the law that no other man could possibly hope to achieve. Again, I'm sure we can agree on all this.

The law says do not murder. If you do not murder someone, does that mean you have fallen from grace? If you do not eat pork, have you fallen from grace? If you never eat ostrich, have you fallen from grace?

We don't need the letter of the law to know to what we must obey:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

What the Lord writes into our hearts is far more effective and meaningful than the letter what kills.

Matthew 22:37-40

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, what's written in our hearts can be summed up in these two, which leads to the obedience to what the Lord has called us.

There is an issue of trying to be justified by the law here, not just keeping an Old Testament commandment, intentionally or incidentally.

Yes indeed.

MM

 

[UnoiAmarah]

In the early Church under the new covenant, very few were landowners, many were poor, some were slaves.

I would venture to say that none of them were landowners, or had any money and were totally dependent upon the church for their need.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Acts 4:34-35

There is no command given to the Christian church to give tithes of anything to anyone, and Christians are not under the Mosaic law, as Paul emphasizes in many places.

Sounds like the tithe was raised from 10% to all they had, and the punishment for holding anything back was death.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Acts 5:3

And we know what happened to Ananias.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

It makes no sense that the believers sold "all" they had, and therefore impoverishing themselves out into the gutters only to become additional burdens upon the local Church.

So Jesus didn't tell the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor that he might have treasure in heaven?

"for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet:" Act 4:34

 

[Dino246]

Sounds like the tithe was raised from 10% to all they had, and the punishment for holding anything back was death.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Acts 5:3

And we know what happened to Ananias.

That's a misread of the story.

Peter said to them in verses 3-4, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?"

If the money was "under his control", he wasn't obligated to give it. The problem was not that Ananias did not give the full amount, but that he lied by saying that he was giving the full amount. This is explained by verses 8 and 9, where his wife Sapphira is asked directly if the money given was the full amount received for the land. She lied as well, and joined her husband in death.

 

[Dino246]

So Jesus didn't tell the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor that he might have treasure in heaven?

"for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet:" Act 4:34

This was the case in Jerusalem in the earliest days, but nothing about this is presented as a command or encouragement. It just "was"; in other words, it's narrative, and it is a bad idea to make doctrine from narrative.

If Christians were required to sell their houses and lands, Paul would not write to the Colossians (4:15) regarding Nympha and the church that met in her house.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

We saw what Jesus thought about the temple tax, which was to have a coin extracted from a slimy fish's mouth handed over to those collecting such a tax.

Matt 17:25
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

He saith, Yes.

And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

but nothing about this is presented as a command or encouragement

Say what? So in Luke 18:18 so when the certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? you don't think his response "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." wasn't presented as a commands or encouragement?

I guess that is why the rich younger ruler responded, "And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

 

[Dino246]

Say what? So in Luke 18:18 so when the certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? you don't think his response "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." wasn't presented as a commands or encouragement?

I guess that is why the rich younger ruler responded, "And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

Jesus' words were a command to the ruler, but they aren't to us. Was my meaning unclear somehow?

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Is it possible that the "Reset" that is occurring is to create the home churches and dismantle false big box Christianity?

We can certainly hope that it will end the prophet for profit mess.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

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?

Because I know some that have flat out failed. Thank God. I went to one early in my Christian life that every week quoted Malachi, and had a 15 minute message about tithing before the sermon, which was usually about serving. They are gone, and scattered. I can only think the Lord did it for tryin to hold his children in bondage.

 

[Musicmaster]

So Jesus didn't tell the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor that he might have treasure in heaven?

No. That's not what I was referring to in what I was talking about. I thought we were talking about the Gentile believers, where it's said they sold lands and houses. The text doesn't say they sold "all," and therefore putting themselves out into the gutters to live, and thus become additional burdens upon other believers.

"for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet:" Act 4:34

Yes. In that text, it says they brought the price of the things they sold. Nowhere in that context does it say they sold all they had and gave it all away. Why would they impoverish themselves only to become a burden upon others? That makes no sense. And yet, some people assume that into the text what isn't stated.

MM

 

[Blade]

A cheerful giver. "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. "

For me really? We have to have hugh posts over something that is so easy to understand. When does the Father hammer you about sin or anything? yeah never. like it believe it or not there is something to giving. For me I don't give to get.. oh I know He will bless me but again I don't give to get. A cheerful giver period. What so and so does or some Church.. why do you care? They are not given doing it to or for you. Them like you don't answer to man.

Oh the poor... since we seem to be talking about the word of God.. if its truth then some wont like this. You don't give them money or just food and clothes and then feel great about your self! WOOT! No.. to help them means you HELP THEM all the way till that person is back on their feet. Not handing them money and leave. What you find out is many of those poor don't want help.. thats the sad part. Should be easy.. if it was you.. want just that money or the help to get out to be free from where you are? Yeah.

The woman didn't give because she had to.. she wanted to. That was faith.. she gave what she didn't have. LIke a meeting where the woman ran up gave everything she had. It was all the money to get back home and to see the doctor for her child. See for the 1st time this pastor ask then to give a faith gift (careful what you say). She ran up gave all. One of the pastors saw her and went over to see just what she gave.. he was shocked for she gave all she had. Well this man of God again in front of a few thousand talked about what he was seeing in the spirit.. said.. your here right now with that baby.. bring that baby up right now. She did.. that baby could not see nor walk tongue hanging out.. again in front of a few thousand. Right there that baby was healed of everything. Everyone saw that baby for the first time see walk and say "MOMMA".. wow praise you Jesus.

See that pastor never asked that before. Today it has been so twisted...just wrong. As people left they gave and gave and gave and gave to her. We all do this in our life's from time to time just not with money. Its called faith.. called stepping out where you have everything to lose yet you walk where you can't see and simply trust in Him knowing He WILL meet all your needs.. He will never fail you. So many give where the rent is due. They just gave because He comes first. Others don't.. so? Others do it because they need.. and are really hurting. Others give being told "if you do Gods going to this or that or heal you" <---that one is so wrong. Yet the people giving are really giving to who? God.. that pastor what ever may be fake but GOD will honor their faith. That preacher.. will answer to GOD for misleading His Children.

Your Father hello does not need anything.. those streets we will walk on are clear GOLD! Its always to help YOU!

 

[Guojing]

No. That's not what I was referring to in what I was talking about. I thought we were talking about the Gentile believers, where it's said they sold lands and houses. The text doesn't say they sold "all," and therefore putting themselves out into the gutters to live, and thus become additional burdens upon other believers.



Yes. In that text, it says they brought the price of the things they sold. Nowhere in that context does it say they sold all they had and gave it all away. Why would they impoverish themselves only to become a burden upon others? That makes no sense. And yet, some people assume that into the text what isn't stated.

MM

Remember what Peter, thru the Holy Spirit, prophesied about the coming Tribulation using the Joel's quote in Acts 2?

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The day of the Lord is a well known OT prophecy about the Jacob's trouble.

When you expect Daniel's 70th week to come very soon, like they did, it makes perfect sense, since you want to avoid taking the mark of the beast.

The easiest way to minimize temptation, to trust God for daily bread daily, is to make sure you have as little private possessions as possible.

 

[tribesman]

Because I know some that have flat out failed. Thank God. I went to one early in my Christian life that every week quoted Malachi, and had a 15 minute message about tithing before the sermon, which was usually about serving. They are gone, and scattered. I can only think the Lord did it for tryin to hold his children in bondage.

Dunno about that particular case. My general observation is that churches that do tithing are well off financially and have good margins.

But here's another angle of the thing: If you do tithing as a kind of demand or must or under some kind of threat, then it might work counter effective.

See it primarily as a practical solution and a fair way of putting things together. There are too many churches where some people give far above 10% monthly and others far less than so. It's a way of balancing things also. It's actually a minimum of what could be expected.

So, you see, faithfulness in giving the minimum has a good outcome, while the sporadic and impulsive above minimum may lead to loss.