Why are Christians still tithing

[IRQ Conflict]

Anyone who brings something to the table that serves to enlighten could be construed as a teacher. My kids teach their dad all the time

Keep up the Good work!

[Jac3510]

OK, authentic. I'm still following you, so I have a few more follow up thoughts and questions.

You do a good job with introductory exegesis. I can't comment on your exposition of particular passages, as I've not seen any from you yet. But, you have what I believe to be the correct approach to 1) the understanding of the OT in general, and 2) the proper understanding of the relationship to the Old and New Covenants.

So, when dealing with Malachi, you set out the occasionl. I highly applaud that. It's something that I believe that vast majority of our teachers and pastors aren't doing. Specifically, I have two issues I would like to see you clarify.

1. In a general application, you noted that the priests correspond to modern pastors. Are you abstracting commands to the priest to be commands to the pastor, and if so, on what grounds? Or do you consider pastors to fill the role of the OT priest, and, as such, the application is derived?

2. More importantly, I don't know that I necessarily agree with the occasion you have set out. Would you provide an outline of the book demonstrating its central theme? I put one together to see if this was too much to ask. It took me about thirty minutes . . . mine placed the context of the "tithing" proof text differently than the one you are suggesting.

Obviously, exegesis is important. Sense this is primarily a Scriptural quetsion we are dealing with, here, I think you would agree with have to begin with this. Ultimately, what I really want to see is how you apply, given the context, the specific passage to modern Christianity.

Lastly, and I don't want to bog you down, but what are your thoughts on Heb. 7:1-10, with the passage referred to being Gen. 14:18-20?

Thanks

[authentic]

OK, authentic. I'm still following you, so I have a few more follow up thoughts and questions.

You do a good job with introductory exegesis. I can't comment on your exposition of particular passages, as I've not seen any from you yet. But, you have what I believe to be the correct approach to 1) the understanding of the OT in general, and 2) the proper understanding of the relationship to the Old and New Covenants.

So, when dealing with Malachi, you set out the occasionl. I highly applaud that. It's something that I believe that vast majority of our teachers and pastors aren't doing. Specifically, I have two issues I would like to see you clarify.

1. In a general application, you noted that the priests correspond to modern pastors. Are you abstracting commands to the priest to be commands to the pastor, and if so, on what grounds? Or do you consider pastors to fill the role of the OT priest, and, as such, the application is derived?

2. More importantly, I don't know that I necessarily agree with the occasion you have set out. Would you provide an outline of the book demonstrating its central theme? I put one together to see if this was too much to ask. It took me about thirty minutes . . . mine placed the context of the "tithing" proof text differently than the one you are suggesting.

Obviously, exegesis is important. Sense this is primarily a Scriptural quetsion we are dealing with, here, I think you would agree with have to begin with this. Ultimately, what I really want to see is how you apply, given the context, the specific passage to modern Christianity.

Lastly, and I don't want to bog you down, but what are your thoughts on Heb. 7:1-10, with the passage referred to being Gen. 14:18-20?

Thanks

ok, first off, i related the Levitical Preist to the pastor, because Christians use the subjects in Malachi as a parallel to the New Testament church. Ex. Storehouse=Church building, Opening of the Sky=God's grace, Blessings=Money. This may be a vague illustration, but you can see where i'm going. In any event, i'm using the same Parallel, to futher illustrate the point. Therefore if the Storehouse is the church according to the apologetics, then the Preist who are robbing God are the Pastors of today, not the sheep or congregation!

Now on the subject of Abram tithing to Melchezidek, bare in mind that Abram , after returning from conquering Kedorlaomer, returned with the spoils of war (goods or property seized from a victum after a conflict or military war). In other words, the things that he brought back with him was not his own. But the climax of this chapter is the fact that Abram's tithing was voluntary, not of the law, for he would not have said: Genesis 14:22"I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share"..
Now this is after Melchezidek offered to give back to him the goods from the war. Honestly, i don't see how this relates to our necessity to tithe.

1. Abram tithed to Melchezidek his spoils of war, during a time when tithing was not a law. Meaning that it was voluntary.

2. We don't know if this was a one time occurance, since we never hear of Abram tithing after this incident.

3. This is another example of how we (the modern church) don't tithe correctly, based on the fact that in every occurance of tithing in the Old Testament, the Preists (leaders), would offer to distribute a part of the tithe so others would benefit in the blessing.

OH YES, and Hebrews, i had a feeling you were going to that scipture, but lets read alittle further down the chapter to see how "perfect" the Levitical Preisthood was:

Hebrews 7:11-16

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

[Jac3510]

LoL, relax, authentic. I don't think you realize how much of agreement we are actually in. I just wonder how these issues I'm bringing up are going to fit into your overall ideas, because I come to only slightly different conclusions (though in practice basically the same).

1. On the Priest->Pastor relationship. We need to get a proper exegesis. I don't believe that the pastor is a "modern day priest." I don't think there are any parallels, just like I don't see a parallel in the synagogue->church concept (although that can possibly be justfied, but on different grounds. Regardless, I would stongly reject the Temple->Church notion, so far as buildings go).

Since I don't take the immediate context of Mal. 3 to be the priests, but rather the people of Israel in general, I don't think we can say this passage applies to modern day preachers' management of funds. Of course, this LAW only applies to Israel. Being the good dispensationalist that I am, I wouldn't think of applying it directly to us. But, what I want to see where you come from on this is in relationship to the idea that God required the people of Israel to give to the ministry that He had ordained. The specific number for them was no less than 10%, and, of course, there were both blessings and curses tied to this law.

So, while I would accept the idea that Christians are not required to give 19% of their income as a tithe, I would reject the notion that Christians are not required to give. In fact, based on the next passage, I would still say that 10% is the pretty basic standard . . .

2. As to Abe and Mel. Notice that, again, the tithe was given before the Law. What does this establish? We can firmly say that the tithe, like marriage, is not rooted in the Mosaic Law. What, then, caused Abraham to tithe? As the author of Hebrews says, the lesser tithes to the greater. It is a law of conscience, you might say. It predates the Mosaic Law. Thus, it is possible that we may yet be under it.

Now, in your reply, you said the only thing so far I outright disagree with. Abraham was not speaking to the king of Salem when he rejected the spoils. This, then, wasn't Mel trying to give back anything. The context was Abe takling to the king of Sodom.

Moving, then, back to Abe's tithe, I think the key verse is actually 20. He tithed because this was a priest of the Most High God, which was the same God he served! This, then, was Abraham's recognition that all he received was from the hand of God.

This is confirmed in Hebrews. The lesser is blessed by the greater. Abe gave to Mel, and was blessed by him. The author goes on to prove that the Levitical Priesthood was not perfect. That would require a greater priesthood. As Levi gave to Mel, so Mel was greater, and this is the type of priesthood we are talking about.

So, in this context, tithing, apart from the Mosaic Law, is an expression of the lower to the greater. When this is done, the greater blesses the lower, which is exactly what we see happening to the Jewish people in Mal. 3.

[authentic]

I have a question. Are you suggesting that any financial offering below 10% is unacceptable to God? Or are you making observations through scripture that would suggest that this would be a standard, since Abram volunarily did it and that it was once part of the law?

[Jac3510]

I am suggesting a standard via observation, as you well put it. For me, the principle which we are under is not the tithe in the technical sense, but the giving a portion of our first fruits, in whatever sense that may be. In our industrialized world, money is the common fruit of our labors. 10% seems, to me, to be a good suggested standard, given observation from Scripture.

Secondly, I would differentiate this from the offering. The former is a principle by which all Christians are called to live. The latter is the particular gift that God leads you to provide to whatever specific person or ministry He is leading you to support.

[authentic]

I am suggesting a standard via observation, as you well put it. For me, the principle which we are under is not the tithe in the technical sense, but the giving a portion of our first fruits, in whatever sense that may be. In our industrialized world, money is the common fruit of our labors. 10% seems, to me, to be a good suggested standard, given observation from Scripture.

Secondly, I would differentiate this from the offering. The former is a principle by which all Christians are called to live. The latter is the particular gift that God leads you to provide to whatever specific person or ministry He is leading you to support.

i think i understand where you are coming from. I suppose my point is just that, what ever way you give or support the ministry is fine. But according to the new covenant, God concentrates more on your motive of your giving. Therefore if your giving is done to impress your neighbor, or out of coersion, then it considered unacceptable to God. Even under the Old Covenant God first tells us to "rend your heart and not your Garment", meaning to sacrifice your heart and not your clothing in mouring before him. And again he tells us to make peice with your brother before your bring your sacrifice to the alter. But for me, this parable gives great perspective on what type of heart we should have:


Luke 18-9-14

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

now this parable really doesn't have anything to do with how much we should give. But it does relate to the mind set of our relationship with God, and when we do give. Because many people get very high minded when they do much in the minstry and in the world. Which results in self-rightousness and pride. That can't be of God at all.

In all, what i can can truely say is that if you want to give 10% as a standard then give it with a willing and thankful heart, but our giving isn't just nailed down to money at church. It is, more importantly done outside of the church building towards our family and strangers (THE POOR). This is part of our ministry, that we give to support the physical needs of our neighbor which leads to our witness and testimony of the One Living God.

[Jac3510]

That's why I said we are more in agreement than not. But I've seen people take the your argument (which is correct) and come to totally incorrect conclusions. Since people do read these other than just those who post, I thought it would be good (and fun ) to clarify.

Besides all this, Jesus often quoted Hos. 6:6, 'I desire compassion and not sacrifice.' See also Is. 1:10-20. Beyond this you can also point out the parable of the window and her two minas. So, I'd definitely agree with your basic premise.

I did, though, notice that you feel it is more important to give to the poor. Might I ask where you get that? I don't mind giving to them, of course, and I do. But, I do believe that giving to the local church holds a higher priority, so I'd like to see where you are basing that idea.

Thanks

[authentic]

I did, though, notice that you feel it is more important to give to the poor. Might I ask where you get that? I don't mind giving to them, of course, and I do. But, I do believe that giving to the local church holds a higher priority, so I'd like to see where you are basing that idea.

Thanks

Sorry, i was in error. In my heart I really meant to say that, it is of equal importance. I believe we are to support our local minstry and help the poor. At the same time i do feel that the subject of "giving to the poor" is tremendously under emphasized in our churches, in general. But it seems that all of the attention, in relation to giving, is giving money to the church (pastor) and thats all. That means tithes, offerings, sacrifice offerings, and an occasional extra offering for a visiting pastor. In my opinion, this stagnates the people of God from being a blessing to those who are less fortunate. Especially, those with in the congregation. Think about it, you have people that go to church- they love God, want to do his will, want to be bible right, yet at the same time they are struggling with some financial issues. You have single mothers, widows, fathers who just lost their job. Yet in the mist of this, the money is going straight into the pastors pockets, never to see day-light again. Why is this? Because most churches are now teaching a "give to get" prosperity doctrine. Therefore, if you support the ministry, then God will bless you directly, based upon your giving and how much you gave. Bare in mind i'm not saying all churches are like this, but from my observation, most of them are handling business this way. But i think this scripture, sums up what i'm trying to say in a way that only God can do, lets see:

James 2:1-13

1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. 2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” 4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.”[c]Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

[Jac3510]

That's never happened. I turned off my popup blocker to spell check and I lost my reply?!?

Anyway, I think we're on the same page now. I have a problem with the idea that my tithe goes to the pastor. I attended a fairly large church some years ago and their budget, which was close to seven figures, showed that nearly 80% went to salary. I can see the justification of that in a small church (under 100), because even that percentage isn't going to give the pastor a massive pay check. But, in cases like this, it seems to me the financial principles on which the average American church is based are way off base.

Secondly, I think I mis-spoke when I said I felt giving to the local church was more important. I see that as something of a requirement in principle. The giving of the first fruits should go to the local church. But, giving to the poor is equally important and should not be neglected. I may do this by giving to them directly, by giving to the church for that purpose, by giving to some organization, etc., but in the end, that should happen as well, as per the verse you quoted.

There is one thing I wanted to mention on this before that I forgot. To me, there is a real principle behind all of this that shouldn't be forgotten. Often, we don't give because we "need the money" (or whatever we are thinking about giving!) for something else, usually related to ourselves. But, when we use that excuse, what we are actually doing is telling God that we don't trust Him to take care of us, or, worse, that our wants are more important than His work! God doesn't need our money, but generosity forces us to put our complete trust in Him. "Seek ye first," and all that . . .

Thanks for bringing this up. You've helped me clarify my own thoughts on this, which is always great.

God bless