The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

In this chapter, Paul quotes the law of Moses. The tithe law is part of the law of Moses. So, while Paul is quoting the law of Moses, he talks about the ox? This is a very poor example for you to use if you are advocating for a tithe being available for pastors.

The important similarity that you and Paul have is that you, Paul and the ox are just alike in one wise, none of you are entitled to tithes, according to the law of Moses that Paul is quoting.

The passage does not change anything regarding a pastor being entitled to tithes. If anything it reinforces my position. Here we have Paul, who is very well educated in the law, quoting the law, and talking about the ox.

You are overlooking the obvious fact that the legalities of law associated with cursing and so on are not binding on the new covenant church. A person does not have to give "tithes", but a person does have to give and support.

Paul quoted the Law in this chapter, but not to imply that all the legalities associated with tithes back in that day are binding on the new testament believer. His reference to law no more implies that than quoting Psalm 110:1 and saying that's fulfilled in Christ implies that we have to take every other reference written back under that day of the old covenant and keep those laws including literal temple sacrifice and bringing a woman and making her drink the bitter water that causeth the curse if she was suspected of adultery.

He is simply using a principle that applies to new covenant ministers without any demand to apply the legalities.

You need to understand what I believe in order to understand my point, which I should have explained earlier. I do not believe we have to give ten percent and no more or no less. The New Covenant does not lay that out. It teaches to give according to your faith, and encourages folks to stretch their faith. So, if one gives ten per cent, they could just as rightfully given 3.684 per cent, or 85 per cent. With that having been said, someone can give tithes since it is a good percentage for that person. Why did God choose the ten per cent and associate it with all the legalties that the Law demanded? COuld it be that ten per cent is reasonable? Doesn't really matter. The point is that's how I look at using the word tithes. I do not have to give that amount but can give any other percentage I feel to give in faith. And the congregant does not have to do anything different than that as well. But if they happen to think a ten per cent manner is what they choose to give, having come from a legalistic background or not, and carrying it forward, they can do so as long as the person does not think they're cursed if they don't.

And that means that the widow and orhpan issue is not binding in such a concept.

Why didn’t Paul refer to the tithe law, instead of talking about the comparatively vague law about the ox?

Was he known for being timid?

Was he afraid to speak his mind?

Again, I never said that 1 Cor 9 is restricted to the context of tithes. By tithe I thought YOU meant the general concept of a minister receiving income because that's what is the general thought here, ...I think anyway.

We know Paul knew the law, he was not afraid to speak his mind, yet he didn’t say, “pastors are eligible to receive tithes, according to the law”. He said instead, that the Mosaic law forbids muzzling the ox that treads the corn. Because Paul was like you Brother Blume, in that he was not eligible to receive tithes according to the law that he is quoting. And Paul, Brother Blume, was no hypocrite. And it would be the very epitome of hypocrisy for him to quote the law of Moses regarding tithes, when he (like you), had no right to tithes under that same law. Paul was a Benjamite, Brother Blume. As a Benjamite, he was ineligible to receive tithes under the law that he is quoting. So he draws a comparison to the ox. The ox wasn’t eligible for tithes either, under the law (again, like you). He could eat all he wanted, the Mosaic law granted him the right. But the ox couldn’t take anything home to the stall. He couldn’t put it in the bank. The law didn’t give him the right to receive tithes. Because the ox was no Levite. Anymore than Paul was a Levite. Or Brother Blume is a Levite.

I have not once said, nor do I believe, that being a pastor excludes you from support from the church. The issue is tithes. And tithes didn’t go on the altar. The general tithe didn’t go to the temple either. Remember, the tithe went to the forty eight cities of tillage. There was only one temple.

So, once more. Quote scripture that you, as a pastor, are entitled to tithes. Paul was quoting Mosaic law. Follow his example that YOU quoted in Corinthians, and show me where the law entitles you

Because I do not believe that a tithe is the necessary legalistic manner to give, your words d not apply to my perspective.

[coksiw]

Brother Blume,
Regarding your “10% being reasonable”, you need to take into account that the tithe was not on traders, labors, fishermen, or miner, to bring examples. It was only on the land produce and livestock, for the Levites, who didn’t have a land.
Jesus, who was a carpenter, was never recorded paying tithes, or the disciples themselves. It was recorded that he paid taxes, though.
Look at Booz, a landlord, who had labors working for him. You could see there what kind of wealth landlords had, to the point of having labors and slaves to work on the land.


I can bring to you several examples of people neglecting retirement savings, piling debt on their family, or not honoring their needy parents financially because of giving 10% of the wages.
The generalization of 10% being reasonable for all income and all classes is just not only not biblical but also naive.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Brother Blume,
Regarding your “10% being reasonable”, you need to take into account that the tithe was not on traders, labors, fishermen, or miner, to bring examples. It was only on the land produce and livestock, for the Levites, who didn’t have a land.
Jesus, who was a carpenter, was never recorded paying tithes, or the disciples themselves. It was recorded that he paid taxes, though.
Look at Booz, a landlord, who had labors working for him. You could see there what kind of wealth landlords had, to the point of having labors and slaves to work on the land.


I can bring to you several examples of people neglecting retirement savings, piling debt on their family, or not honoring their needy parents financially because of giving 10% of the wages.
The generalization of 10% being reasonable for all income and all classes is just not only not biblical but also naive.

I watched this over the years, but don’t know where it’s from. Where does it say fisherman couldn’t tithe? Pharisees tithed and by Paul’s example he was a laborer who made tents. So where is this prohibition found in the Bible? Where were tradesmen prohibited to tithe THEIR anise, mint, and cumin?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I watched this over the years, but don’t know where it’s from. Where does it say fisherman couldn’t tithe? Pharisees tithed and by Paul’s example he was a laborer who made tents. So where is this prohibition found in the Bible? Where were tradesmen prohibited to tithe THEIR anise, mint, and cumin?

Jesus reference to Pharisees tithing was about the mint and spices that grew in their pots and backyards, which grew from the land. It was an observation of the law to the ridiculous details.

The Law doesn’t prohibit to tithe other things but it didn’t require it. Nevertheless I see you are changing my topic from “requirement” to “prohibition”.

You can’t determine a doctrine from one verse and ignore the rest that talk about it more clearly. Tithing is said from the increase but when you bring the rest of the verses it says that it is from produce and livestock clearly. And to support that interpretation there is no record of other things being mandatorily tithed.

There is one record of Jesus using a negative example of a Pharisee tithing “everything I gain”, but not further details, and presented as a negative example. Whatever "gain" was, it was not money, since tithing was not to be presented to the Levites as money according to the Law. Just as a matter of curiosity, the Pharisees did give money offerings, and the Hillel school used to teach that if you gave 1/40 you had a "good eye" and if you gave 1/60 you had a "bad eye". That money offering probably went to the synagogue benevolent fund, or the temple building fund.

Brother, there are plenty of posts about this topic if you want to know more.
I was just answering the “10% reasonable” argument which is new in the thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Jesus reference to Pharisees tithing was about the mint and spices that grew in their pots and backyards, which grew from the land. It was an observation of the law to the ridiculous details.

The Law doesn’t prohibit to tithe other things but it didn’t require it. Nevertheless I see you are changing my topic from “requirement” to “prohibition”.

You can’t determine a doctrine from one verse and ignore the rest that talk about it more clearly. Tithing is said from the increase but when you bring the rest of the verses it says that it is from produce and livestock clearly. And to support that interpretation there is no record of other things being mandatorily tithed.

There is one record of Jesus using a negative example of a Pharisee tithing “everything I gain”, but not further details, and presented as a negative example. Whatever "gain" was, it was not money, since tithing was not to be presented to the Levites as money according to the Law. Just as a matter of curiosity, the Pharisees did give money offerings, and the Hillel school used to teach that if you gave 1/40 you had a "good eye" and if you gave 1/60 you had a "bad eye". That money offering probably went to the synagogue benevolent fund, or the temple building fund.

Brother, there are plenty of posts about this topic if you want to know more.
I was just answering the “10% reasonable” argument which is new in the thread.

So fishermen and tent makers didn’t grow herbs in their back yards?
Jesus wasn’t saying that the Pharisee was ridiculous for the smallest details, like straining gnats. But that they forgot what the tithe was truly about. Still, you haven’t proved that the fishermen, carpenters, and tent makers didn’t tithe.
Could you please supply the information concerning Rabbinical backyard gardens?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So fishermen and tent makers didn’t grow herbs in their back yards?
Jesus wasn’t saying that the Pharisee was ridiculous for the smallest details, like straining gnats. But that they forgot what the tithe was truly about.

Definitely, I agree with you.

Still, you haven’t proved that the fishermen, carpenters, and tent makers didn’t tithe.

From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?

Could you please supply the information concerning Rabbinical backyard gardens?

The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Definitely, I agree with you.


From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?


The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

Do you believe the Bible is very specific on what tithe is, who should pay it, and who should receive it?

It’s not a “gotcha” question.

I just have wondered that, because Abraham gave tithe,

Genesis 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [19] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: [20] And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Definitely, I agree with you.


From their gains of their trade or from the backyard mint?


The Gospel mentions mint and anise and cummin. The tithing commandment was of the increase of the land. There is no commandment about tithing of the food you buy. Therefore, the only sensible explanation about the spices Jesus was talking about is the one you grow yourself, which was subject to tithing of the increase from the produce of the land. This explanation aligns with the Scripture.
What other explanation you have that also aligns with the Scripture?

Again, you refer to backyard mint? Were the pharisees the only ones with herbs growing? Also there was a tithe of livestock production, which was milk, butter, cheese, kefir, wool, and whatever else they harvested from their goats, oxen, and sheep Deut 18:4, Deut 32:14, Exod 23:19, Exod 34:26, Num 13:27, Lev 27:30-33. What i think the confusion is all about, is that our system of commerce, and trade is far different then their system was in the Bible. You and I deal with paper currency, electronic currency, and therefore barter as far as livestock produce, and farmed goods are a mystery to the believer of today. No one was shopping at Whole Foods Market or Winn Dixie. They were raising their own livestock and produce from the land. Therefore it had to be tithed by the producer.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Also there was a tithe of livestock production, which was milk, butter, cheese, kefir, wool, and whatever else they harvested from their goats, oxen, and sheep Deut 18:4, Deut 32:14, Exod 23:19, Exod 34:26, Num 13:27, Lev 27:30-33.

I looked at all your bible references and I didn't find one that proves your point that Israel not only had to tithe the livestock that passed under the rod but also the production of it: butter, milk, cheese, etc...
Could you please post verses about that?

There is reference to wine and oil, but not reference of bringing grapes or olives. Do you see the point?

What i think the confusion is all about, is that our system of commerce, and trade is far different then their system was in the Bible. You and I deal with paper currency, electronic currency, and therefore barter as far as livestock produce, and farmed goods are a mystery to the believer of today. No one was shopping at Whole Foods Market or Winn Dixie. They were raising their own livestock and produce from the land. Therefore it had to be tithed by the producer.

I appreciate you attempt to help me understand but I think you are still wrong. There was money and wages and labor back then, beside slaves. Also other trades like carpenter, miner, and such. They didn't tithe the gain of their trade. Anyways, the correspondence between their life and our life is not relevant to the application of tithing because it starts with the assumption that we need to do such an application, which the NT doesn't.

My point of bringing the other trades is to show you that not every income and not every class had to tithe. The current teaching of tithing generalizes it to all incomes and classes as if the Law did so as well, which is not the case.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Do you believe the Bible is very specific on what tithe is, who should pay it, and who should receive it?

It’s not a “gotcha” question.

I just have wondered that, because Abraham gave tithe,

Genesis 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [19] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: [20] And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

The Law is specific of what to tithe. Abraham tithed of the spoil of war, and the Law requires an offering of the spoil of war which is much less than the tithe. Israel was obedient to that Law. They didn't extrapolate Abraham tithe of the spoil of war to tithe spoil of wars.

Nicodemus, I don't know why you bring the Abraham tithing, which was free-will, not an obedience/curse issue as taught by most Apostolic churches. Except for a few, most teach tithing quoting Mal, which is the law, and which is an obedience issue with curses included. That's not Abraham tithing.

Brother, did you answer my question what Paul meant with compulsion in here?
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.