The Biblical tithe, re-examined

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I can’t quite get to the point that the tithe was freewill. It was Law. The question remains, what was the punishment? I don’t think we have enough information to make that call in the Bible. There is an example of an oath that was recited concerning the tithe that sounds somewhat like an honor system. Let me find it.

Deuteronomy 28:12-14

[12] When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
[13] Then thou shalt say before the LORD thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them:
[14] I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead: but I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, and have done according to all that thou hast commanded me.

This sounds like a vow, that you have properly taken care of your tithing duties. Remember that the tithe was “holy unto the LORD” so it was to be exercised with care and reverence. But as you say, I don’t see where the consequences are spelled out like they often are with other parts of the Mosaic Law.

It is just a thought, but it almost seems to me that the Levites didn’t have any land, so their portion was divided up between the other tribes who farmed it for them and delivered the produce to them. Not Bible, and not literal, just a thinking point.

Amen, Law was commands, which held penalty, and there was freewill offerings was just that, a voluntary religious offering. The Old Testament system was a system which revolved around a temple service. The laws of the temple service, and the laws of governing the people. The priesthood were leadership which were to be provided for since they had to do the service. Not only to the temple, but to the people. In the New Testament Jesus calls His ministers from secular work, some right in the middle of their business. The sons of Zebedee right out of their father's boat. Peter right in the midst of what might as well been the largest catch of his life. Matthew in the seat of taxation. Peter comments that they all (the apostles) left everything and followed Him. Peter was a fisher, and Jesus changes that vocation from a fisher of fish, to a fisher of men. When after the resurrection, and twice Jesus appears to the 11, Peter states that he wanted to return to secular work. So, he goes back to fishing. Jesus appears a the third time, and calls out to Peter in the boat to cast the net the same way he did when Jesus first called him to be a fisher of men. The net goes over the side, and a great catch is made. Yet this time the net is not broken. No need to repair, and Peter is told to drag the fish to Jesus. Jesus then tells Peter three time if Peter loved Jesus more than Peter's enormous catch. Jesus asks Peter this as many times as Peter had denied Jesus. Each time Jesus tells Peter to teach, FEED Jesus' flock. The Levites were to dedicate their lives to the service of God, and own no property, no provision for themselves. God would take care of them. The Christian church has teachers which God takes care of, and while we go back and forth on who takes care of what. God takes care of those he calls. The congregation was to put aside as they had ability, they were to provide for those who taught them, to share. They were to unmuzzle their oxen, and allow them to tread the corn freely. The soldier didn't go to war by using his own expenses, the shepherd was supported by the milk of his sheep, and the vine dresser drinks the wine produced by his vines, and therefore as the Levite was provided for, by the meat of the altar, so was it ordained that the Christian ministers would be provided for. All done with freewill, the minister gave freely expecting nothing, and it was all left up to the sanit to do as they very well pleased. Also Paul made it that it was never asked for, so not to make it so that his glorying vain.

The decision was left to Israel to either muzzle the ox, or not muzzle the ox.

After all, it was their ox, and even if the animal was skin and bone, he could still crush the wheat.

[Tithesmeister]

That’s a great post. I agree.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Amen, Law was commands, which held penalty, and there was freewill offerings was just that, a voluntary religious offering. The Old Testament system was a system which revolved around a temple service. The laws of the temple service, and the laws of governing the people. The priesthood were leadership which were to be provided for since they had to do the service. Not only to the temple, but to the people. In the New Testament Jesus calls His ministers from secular work, some right in the middle of their business. The sons of Zebedee right out of their father's boat. Peter right in the midst of what might as well been the largest catch of his life. Matthew in the seat of taxation. Peter comments that they all (the apostles) left everything and followed Him. Peter was a fisher, and Jesus changes that vocation from a fisher of fish, to a fisher of men. When after the resurrection, and twice Jesus appears to the 11, Peter states that he wanted to return to secular work. So, he goes back to fishing. Jesus appears a the third time, and calls out to Peter in the boat to cast the net the same way he did when Jesus first called him to be a fisher of men. The net goes over the side, and a great catch is made. Yet this time the net is not broken. No need to repair, and Peter is told to drag the fish to Jesus. Jesus then tells Peter three time if Peter loved Jesus more than Peter's enormous catch. Jesus asks Peter this as many times as Peter had denied Jesus. Each time Jesus tells Peter to teach, FEED Jesus' flock. The Levites were to dedicate their lives to the service of God, and own no property, no provision for themselves. God would take care of them. The Christian church has teachers which God takes care of, and while we go back and forth on who takes care of what. God takes care of those he calls. The congregation was to put aside as they had ability, they were to provide for those who taught them, to share. They were to unmuzzle their oxen, and allow them to tread the corn freely. The soldier didn't go to war by using his own expenses, the shepherd was supported by the milk of his sheep, and the vine dresser drinks the wine produced by his vines, and therefore as the Levite was provided for, by the meat of the altar, so was it ordained that the Christian ministers would be provided for. All done with freewill, the minister gave freely expecting nothing, and it was all left up to the sanit to do as they very well pleased. Also Paul made it that it was never asked for, so not to make it so that his glorying vain.

The decision was left to Israel to either muzzle the ox, or not muzzle the ox.

After all, it was their ox, and even if the animal was skin and bone, he could still crush the wheat.

Very good.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In the interest of gently correcting the course of this thread back in the general direction of it's genesis, I'd like to examine a scripture from Malachi that is often overlooked.


Malachi 2:7-9

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Now, as I understand it, this part in red is God rebuking the priests for being partial in the law. This means to me that they were keeping parts of it and ignoring parts of it. It seems to me that they were keeping the parts of the law that benefited them, while ignoring the parts that did not.

Does this seem to be applicable to what is happening in the church today?

Are pastors today guilty of being partial in the law?

Are they deemed "contemptible and base before all people" as a result of these inconsistencies of interpreting the scripture?

I think in reference to the final question above, we may be prone to defend the reputation of pastors that are "partial" in the scriptures under the banner of "touch not my anointed", but in Malachi,as quoted above their inconsistency was not excused. The LORD said He made them (the priests, who were partial in the law), contemptible and base before all men. Perhaps we should not shoot the messenger, for what God has brought to fruition.

What do you think?

I’m just moving this forward and clarifying. After reading the post above, including the scripture, answer the questions below.

Are the pro-tithe preachers today guilty of quoting some scriptures to support their position on tithing, while ignoring other scriptures as the priests in Malachi were rebuked for being partial in the law?

Are the pastors today at risk of “compromising their witness “ (being deemed contemptible and base) as the priests were in the book of Malachi?

Honest answers expected. Scriptural examples welcome. Opinions are fine.

An example of being deemed “contemptible and base” could be people not wanting to go to church because “they’re just after my money”.

Pastors feel free to comment.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m just moving this forward and clarifying. After reading the post above, including the scripture, answer the questions below.

Are the pro-tithe preachers today guilty of quoting some scriptures to support their position on tithing, while ignoring other scriptures as the priests in Malachi were rebuked for being partial in the law?

Are the pastors today at risk of “compromising their witness “ (being deemed contemptible and base) as the priests were in the book of Malachi?

Honest answers expected. Scriptural examples welcome. Opinions are fine.

An example of being deemed “contemptible and base” could be people not wanting to go to church because “they’re just after my money”.

Pastors feel free to comment.

No, not at all.

There are a lot of wonderful sincere men who may of used Malachi 3:10, but weren't focused on getting wealthy. I mean seriously, I knew, and know quite a few brothers who sucked on their wallets while they built a work. Never complained about splitting a bag of McDonald's. Yet, no one sitting in the pews ever thought those brothers wanted to light cigars with their folded dollar bills. Anyone I have ever met who thought the ministers were just after their money, usually had other issues which prevented them from going to church.

Look, people have been attending churches and giving tithe and offering way longer than anyone using the internet to roast preachers. I know brothers and sisters who supported works with a wide grin. If you were to tell them that they didn't need to give 10 percent, they would tell you they never gave 10 percent. They actually gave more. They also didn't feel that the church family was just the pastor's thing, but it was theirs. They were all part of the family, and they all pulled together. New converts witnessed that everyone was together, joined in one mind. They all love each other, and appreciated the work that their elders performed. So, I really don't believe that every minister who uses Malachi 3:10 is showing partiality in matters of the Word. As the failed Levites were showing partiality in the Law of the Temple.

I remember a church which had a deacon who would repeat Malachi 3:10 before passing the plate. People believed that in their giving they were being blessed. You know, better to give sort of thing? So, when testimony service came around (do we have Bible for a testimony service?) these saints of God would testify about how God blessed them through their giving. Not only to their church family, but to others around their community.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, not at all.

There are a lot of wonderful sincere men who may of used Malachi 3:10, but weren't focused on getting wealthy. I mean seriously, I knew, and know quite a few brothers who sucked on their wallets while they built a work. Never complained about splitting a bag of McDonald's. Yet, no one sitting in the pews ever thought those brothers wanted to light cigars with their folded dollar bills. Anyone I have ever met who thought the ministers were just after their money, usually had other issues which prevented them from going to church.

Look, people have been attending churches and giving tithe and offering way longer than anyone using the internet to roast preachers. I know brothers and sisters who supported works with a wide grin. If you were to tell them that they didn't need to give 10 percent, they would tell you they never gave 10 percent. They actually gave more. They also didn't feel that the church family was just the pastor's thing, but it was theirs. They were all part of the family, and they all pulled together. New converts witnessed that everyone was together, joined in one mind. They all love each other, and appreciated the work that their elders performed. So, I really don't believe that every minister who uses Malachi 3:10 is showing partiality in matters of the Word. As the failed Levites were showing partiality in the Law of the Temple.

I remember a church which had a deacon who would repeat Malachi 3:10 before passing the plate. People believed that in their giving they were being blessed. You know, better to give sort of thing? So, when testimony service came around (do we have Bible for a testimony service?) these saints of God would testify about how God blessed them through their giving. Not only to their church family, but to others around their community.

I tithe and give not based of fear of a curse or damnation....when that starts getting preached I just kinda turn off until its done. I give because its a joy to give and I wont have anyone tut tutting behind me stepping on my heels trying to headlock me into it.

Constantly threating with a curse and damnation is a mischaracterization of my character and intentions and says,"I must use this stick because at heart you are a stubborn slothful beast who will not obey otherwise"...just not the case.

[Tithesmeister]

No, not at all.

There are a lot of wonderful sincere men who may of used Malachi 3:10, but weren't focused on getting wealthy.

I’m not asking about men getting wealthy. I’m asking about men being inconsistent in applying the scripture.


The only occasion of tithing actually taking place in the Bible that was not according to the Mosaic law was Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek. Tithe teachers will normally assert that the law has nothing to do with us today. They will, on the other hand, use scripture from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah, Malachi, and Matthew to teach tithing. ALL of these books are in reference to the tithing law. Is it not inconsistent to say we are not under the law, and then teach tithing FROM the law?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

No, not at all.

There are a lot of wonderful sincere men who may of used Malachi 3:10, but weren't focused on getting wealthy.

I’m not asking about men getting wealthy. I’m asking about men being inconsistent in applying the scripture.


The only occasion of tithing actually taking place in the Bible that was not according to the Mosaic law was Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek. Tithe teachers will normally assert that the law has nothing to do with us today. They will, on the other hand, use scripture from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah, Malachi, and Matthew to teach tithing. ALL of these books are in reference to the tithing law. Is it not inconsistent to say we are not under the law, and then teach tithing FROM the law?

Didnt Jacob or Issac tithe as well with the stipulation that IF God blessed him that he would give a 10th?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

No, not at all.

There are a lot of wonderful sincere men who may of used Malachi 3:10, but weren't focused on getting wealthy.

I’m not asking about men getting wealthy. I’m asking about men being inconsistent in applying the scripture.


The only occasion of tithing actually taking place in the Bible that was not according to the Mosaic law was Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek. Tithe teachers will normally assert that the law has nothing to do with us today. They will, on the other hand, use scripture from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah, Malachi, and Matthew to teach tithing. ALL of these books are in reference to the tithing law. Is it not inconsistent to say we are not under the law, and then teach tithing FROM the law?

Abraham was a Chaldean pagan (who leaves paganism of his father) paying tithes of war spoils. This wasn't a foreign concept for military communities. Look at Rome. Nero robs all the temples in the Empire, including the main Temple of Rome. What was mind blowing to the Romans was that the main temple held "tithes and offerings" since the early days of the Republic. Abraham wasn't performing a Levitical Mosaic act, titing to pagan priests, or kings wasn't revolutionary. Like circumcision, it was perform by different groups, Egyptians being one. yet they didn't worship the Hebrew God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Didnt Jacob or Issac tithe as well with the stipulation that IF God blessed him that he would give a 10th?

Genesis 28:20-22.

All religions had some sort of offering system.

All believed that by giving to the priestcraft you were giving to the deity of choice. Noting new, to say that Christianity was void of this, is new.