History of Tithes in the Church

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The discussion is the contrast between full time ministry vs secular employment. It was framed as "Paul could have done full time ministry with no secular employment but he chose to do both, whereas ministers today can forego secular employment".

It was argued that Paul's instructions to the elders of the church in Ephesus was NOT instruction for ministers to do secular employment as an example or paradigm for today's minister, and then later it shifted to a minister can do both.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I was not sure what you were trying to say, and should have just asked for more clarity. I may still be missing your point.

You are equating secular employment in contrast to full time ministry with helping the poverty stricken, which is not what Paul meant whatsoever. I could ask you the same question. How could apostles do full time ministry and yet be instructed to help the poor if helping the poor was full-time as much as ministry was full-time?

Maybe I am still missing your point. Let me know.

When you said, "It was argued that Paul's instructions to the elders of the church in Ephesus was NOT instruction for ministers to do secular employment as an example or paradigm for today's minister, and then later it shifted to a minister can do both," you missed something in my words that I meant.

You seem to be saying that I shifted my argument of Paul's words in Acts 20. I actually did not. Acts 20 is not speaking of helping the poor in a full-time capacity comparable to full-time ministry. Acts 20 is speaking about the occasional need to help the poor, which is by no means full-time. Paul simply said that if you come across those who are poverty stricken, then help them out with some of your own work and give to them. That is by no means a full-time effort. All of us have helped the poor out in some capacity.

But in 1 Cor 9, Paul was talking about something totally different when he spoke of foregoing work.

Again, not sure if I am addressing your point to make the proper clarification of my words, but I did not switch back to saying a man can do full time work and full time ministry at the same time.

So my question was how does a minister FOREGO secular work while simultaneously doing secular work?

Your answer was a weak attempt at deflecting to something I didn't bring up.

I was not deflecting nor do I ever deflect in order to escape dealing with an issue. That is dishonesty. I will deal with your thoughts if I understand them properly. At best, I misunderstood your words. I am not being dishonest.

The of 1 Cor 9 that was Paul poke of foregoing was not the work of Acts 20. the work of Acts 20 was OCCASIONAL efforts to help the poor when the need arose. That was by no means required full time secular work to accomplish.

It was others insisting full time ministry precludes secular work. I simply noted that most full time ministers aren't actually full time. The Bible shows what full time ministry is, 99 and a half percent of ministers I've ever known don't do it the Bible way, and yes 99 and a half won't do just like the song says

When referring to full-time work, I do not know what your definition means, but I am referring to the current equivalent of today's 40 hours a week efforts that don't allow a minister to deal with saints in the way that could otherwise be done.

[mfblume]

So, it's obvious. Tithesmeister and Coksiw are NOT going to give an exegesis of 1 Cor 9, even though one of them said he would.

(I didn't hold my breath, by the way).

[votivesoul]

Let it be remembered, that the same Emissary of the Gospel who wrote 1 Corinthians 9, later on, to the same exact church, wrote the following:

2 Corinthians 12:14 (ESV),

14 Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.

Paul wanted nothing that belonged to the Corinthians. He just wanted them, their fellowship and camaraderie in the Gospel.

His reasoning? Parents "save up" for their children, not the other way 'round. Paul, as the founding apostle of their assembly, had begotten them through the Gospel, and following the human pattern throughout history, recognized his responsibility to nurture and support and take care of his "children" in the faith, and not the other way 'round.

Earlier in 2 Corinthians, he wrote this:

2 Corinthians 2:17 (ESV),

17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Paul wanted the Corinthian believers to be assured that as far as he and his team went, they didn't minister the Gospel for a fee, hidden/to come later, or otherwise. They were sincere, commissioned men, who would preach the Gospel no matter the circumstances.

One of those sincere, commissioned men was Timothy, who was with Paul when Paul first arrived in Corinth (See Acts 18 with 2 Corinthians 1:1 and 19).

Much later in life, Paul wrote to him the following:

1 Timothy 6:8 (ESV),

But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.

It is hard to imagine that when Paul wrote about the Corinthians' "material things" in 1 Corinthians 9:11, he meant anything other than food and clothing, especially if, to his son in the Gospel, Paul instructed Timothy to be content with nothing else. If Paul had meant something more/else/or different, like financial renumeration, imagine Timothy's confusion when after all that time together, Paul suddenly had a change of heart and only wanted Timothy to be content with food and clothing, when financial renumeration as an income had previously been meant and intended in Paul's first letter to the church he founded in Corinth.

Furthermore, let it also be remembered, that the Emissary of the Gospel who wrote 1 Corinthians 9, earlier in the same letter, wrote the following:

1 Corinthians 1:26 (ESV),

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.

Paul reminds his audience of their low-born status. People of that time and era, like in all times and era, those who are low-born, who are not very wise, i.e. intelligent, who wield no power or authority, and who do not come from the nobility of the upper classes, are consistently poor/impoverished. And in many cases, such folk are often servants and slaves.

1 Corinthians 7:21 (ESV),

21 Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.

Gain your freedom? Sounds like Paul realized that a number of Corinthians were slaves. Thus, what means did these slaves have of providing any kind of financial renumeration for services rendered, to anyone? They had nothing. They owned nothing. Their masters fed, clothed, and housed them, and otherwise put them to work. These mostly low-born Corinthians weren't in a position to help anyone with an income, because they themselves didn't have an income. Food they could share, drink they could share, clothing they could share. But that was about it.

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

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Did Paul work his entire missionary journey’s to support the poor, or was he speaking to the elders of Ephesus specifically.

2 Corinthians 11:7-8
7...... Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8......I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

Was Paul working with his hands or receiving wages for ministry.

Just like Paul, ministry must use wisdom and also remain flexible.

Wisdom tells me, that I should teach established saints to support the work of God. It is not a teaching I would use to evangelize the lost.

Flexibility tells me I need to adapt to the abilities and resources of my present field of labor. I would give up the small salary I receive tomorrow if my church family had need for me to do so.

I think these where essentially the things Paul was teaching

Brother, take a look at the Greek words for "robbed" and "wages".

Robbed means "to plunder, as in spoils of war", and wages comes from two Greek terms that mean "meat" and "to purchase". Later, the term came to refer to ration-wages for soldiers, that is, the monies, like a stipend, given to Roman soldiers by their commanding officers so they could buy themselves food.

Paul therefore meant that he demanded and collected foodstuff, i.e., rations and supplies from other churches to share with and support the Corinthians.

We must be careful not to anachronistically take the modern definition of English language terms, and apply those modern definitions to 16th century English, or worse, to 1st century Koine Greek.

2 Corinthians 11:7-8 therefore has nothing to do with income.

See:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/11-8.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/4813.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/3800.htm

[good samaritan]

Wages

opsōnion

Thayer Lexicon:
1. a soldier's pay, allowance
a. that part of the soldier's support given in place of pay [i.e. rations] and the money in which he is paid
2. metaphorically wages: hire or pay of sin

The English word “wages” fits fine in the context.

Income is not just money but value that you receive. If we are bartering goods the government wants to know the values in order for taxes to be paid. Food and raiment has value so it can be considered income. What is the difference if I give you a hamburger or if I give you the money to buy a hamburger. It is essentially an income. We are splitting hairs here only to shame ministry for receiving, or for teaching receiving for labor in the gospel.

I personally have been happy to give to the many ministries God has put in my life. I don’t see the hang up? If someone is just a hireling then don’t support them.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Wages

opsōnion

Thayer Lexicon:
1. a soldier's pay, allowance
a. that part of the soldier's support given in place of pay [i.e. rations] and the money in which he is paid
2. metaphorically wages: hire or pay of sin

The English word “wages” fits fine in the context.

Income is not just money but value that you receive. If we are bartering goods the government wants to know the values in order for taxes to be paid. Food and raiment has value so it can be considered income. What is the difference if I give you a hamburger or if I give you the money to buy a hamburger. It is essentially an income. We are splitting hairs here only to shame ministry for receiving, or for teaching receiving for labor in the gospel.

I personally have been happy to give to the many ministries God has put in my life. I don’t see the hang up? If someone is just a hireling then don’t support them.

The hang-up is whether the Word is being rightly divided or not. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the case that soldiers don't go to war on their own wages (same Greek word as used in 2 Corinthians 11:8). The "wages" Paul refers to isn't money for whatever desire comes to mind but was a settled amount as a stipend for food. That stipend for food wasn't an income. It was monies taken out of the taxes that the Roman Senate mandated from the people so the legions of Rome could wage war and/or protect the interests of the empire. Not a paycheck to be used to support themselves personally, but a pre-determined and settled amount (usually based on rank) so the soldier could soldier on a full stomach for King and Crown.

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

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

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

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

And as far as hirelings are concerned, take a look at the Greek word that Jesus uses in John 10:12-13. It means a paid worker, i.e. a wage-earner. So, anyone in ministry who gets paid in money and earns a wage as you describe is by default, a hireling.

Is the pastor hired on?
Is he considered an employee of the church?
Can he be fired?
Did he have to audition or try out for the job?
Is he answerable to a church board and secretary who monitor the funds?
Does he get an actual paper paycheck or a direct deposit?

You see, at least for our brethren in the USA, for all of the above questions, the likely answer is going to be "yes". And if that's the case, then he's a paid worker, i.e., a wage-earner, and therefore a hireling, by definition.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3411.htm

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So, it's obvious. Tithesmeister and Coksiw are NOT going to give an exegesis of 1 Cor 9, even though one of them said he would.

(I didn't hold my breath, by the way).

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

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Let it be remembered, that the same Emissary of the Gospel who wrote 1 Corinthians 9, later on, to the same exact church, wrote the following:

2 Corinthians 12:14 (ESV),



Paul wanted nothing that belonged to the Corinthians. He just wanted them, their fellowship and camaraderie in the Gospel.

His reasoning? Parents "save up" for their children, not the other way 'round. Paul, as the founding apostle of their assembly, had begotten them through the Gospel, and following the human pattern throughout history, recognized his responsibility to nurture and support and take care of his "children" in the faith, and not the other way 'round.

Earlier in 2 Corinthians, he wrote this:

2 Corinthians 2:17 (ESV),



Paul wanted the Corinthian believers to be assured that as far as he and his team went, they didn't minister the Gospel for a fee, hidden/to come later, or otherwise. They were sincere, commissioned men, who would preach the Gospel no matter the circumstances.

One of those sincere, commissioned men was Timothy, who was with Paul when Paul first arrived in Corinth (See Acts 18 with 2 Corinthians 1:1 and 19).

Much later in life, Paul wrote to him the following:

1 Timothy 6:8 (ESV),



It is hard to imagine that when Paul wrote about the Corinthians' "material things" in 1 Corinthians 9:11, he meant anything other than food and clothing, especially if, to his son in the Gospel, Paul instructed Timothy to be content with nothing else. If Paul had meant something more/else/or different, like financial renumeration, imagine Timothy's confusion when after all that time together, Paul suddenly had a change of heart and only wanted Timothy to be content with food and clothing, when financial renumeration as an income had previously been meant and intended in Paul's first letter to the church he founded in Corinth.

Furthermore, let it also be remembered, that the Emissary of the Gospel who wrote 1 Corinthians 9, earlier in the same letter, wrote the following:

1 Corinthians 1:26 (ESV),



Paul reminds his audience of their low-born status. People of that time and era, like in all times and era, those who are low-born, who are not very wise, i.e. intelligent, who wield no power or authority, and who do not come from the nobility of the upper classes, are consistently poor/impoverished. And in many cases, such folk are often servants and slaves.

1 Corinthians 7:21 (ESV),



Gain your freedom? Sounds like Paul realized that a number of Corinthians were slaves. Thus, what means did these slaves have of providing any kind of financial renumeration for services rendered, to anyone? They had nothing. They owned nothing. Their masters fed, clothed, and housed them, and otherwise put them to work. These mostly low-born Corinthians weren't in a position to help anyone with an income, because they themselves didn't have an income. Food they could share, drink they could share, clothing they could share. But that was about it.

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

Thank you for posting your thoughts brother. Good stuff.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The hang-up is whether the Word is being rightly divided or not.

I have a totally different view on what it means to rightly divide the word.

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the case that soldiers don't go to war on their own wages (same Greek word as used in 2 Corinthians 11:8). The "wages" Paul refers to isn't money for whatever desire comes to mind but was a settled amount as a stipend for food.

This is comical. Does it even matter what the wages are? Food, raiment, lodging, transportation, or money for any of those things? This thread has went from disproving tithe teaching to shirking off responsibilities to support those who labor in the gospel. The thing about ministers of the gospel, they are supposed to be God called. Whether or not the consensus on AFF feel like they should support ministry, God is the one who gives those charges (1 Corinthians 9:7), and God will take care that he receives the necessary wages (2 Corinthians 11:8).

That stipend for food wasn't an income. It was monies taken out of the taxes that the Roman Senate mandated from the people so the legions of Rome could wage war and/or protect the interests of the empire. Not a paycheck to be used to support themselves personally, but a pre-determined and settled amount (usually based on rank) so the soldier could soldier on a full stomach for King and Crown.

So the rightly dividing of the word is: “don’t give anything but food rations to the preacher while he is active duty involved in ministry”?

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

As many times as I have read these scriptures I never realized that Paul was only allowed to receive food rations for his labor in the gospel.

Philippians 4:10-13
10......But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
11......Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12...... I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13......I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

I personally believe Paul ministered to generous and hospitable people who treated him like royalty, and I believe there where other times when Paul didn’t know where he was going to get his next meal. Bottom line is that God provided. Also, it is certain that Paul was not working a 40+ hour weekly public job and raising a family on his missionary journey. Rightly diving the word of God doesn’t mean that we are legalist, and that we must have precise and exact applications of a 1st century culture in a 21st century culture. It means that we are able to use principles and adapt applications to situations that are relevant to us today.

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

So you are saying it is unbiblical to receive monetary offerings in the NT church? Have you got any examples on how we can apply that today? I would like to know what do you think is the biblical way to implement your views, because I am confused about the way it would go over for the saints as well as ministers.

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

We live in a post modern world. Paul didn’t have Christian temples, public utilities, sound and media, etc…. The principle doctrines never change, but applications have changed with every passing generation.

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

I haven’t tried to put anything into the text at all, but I only seek how to apply it in my life today. I guess we should close and sell all of the church buildings and give money to charity. Everyone in ministry needs to go get a job and just gather at a saints’ house, because there is not a biblical model for a church building in the Bible?

And as far as hirelings are concerned, take a look at the Greek word that Jesus uses in John 10:12-13. It means a paid worker, i.e. a wage-earner. So, anyone in ministry who gets paid in money and earns a wage as you describe is by default, a hireling.

Is the pastor hired on?
Is he considered an employee of the church?
Can he be fired?
Did he have to audition or try out for the job?
Is he answerable to a church board and secretary who monitor the funds?
Does he get an actual paper paycheck or a direct deposit?

You have categorized practically everyone in modern church ministry as a hireling. Being a hireling is determined by intents. Sure there are probably some in it for the money, but in my circles it is sacrificial. If it was a pay based occupation then I would have quit a long time ago because I have never been so abused on a job for so little before lol. (The reward is Heaven)

You see, at least for our brethren in the USA, for all of the above questions, the likely answer is going to be "yes". And if that's the case, then he's a paid worker, i.e., a wage-earner, and therefore a hireling, by definition.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3411.htm

It isn’t like this only in the U.S. I have supported many ministries in South Africa, Philippines, etc… some of them may be a poor country, but every instance I am aware of, they feel like the preacher of the gospel needs to be honored with whatever resources they are able to give.

[good samaritan]

2 Timothy 2:15-16
15......Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16......But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.