History of Tithes in the Church

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You are arguing that the tithe was of good and agriculture products because bartering was their main way of trading. But bartering appearing in the Scriptures does not support such statement!

You are so set that I am wrong that you assume my intention and miss what I actually meant. I was saying BARTERING was a form of commerce in those days along with money similar to us today, so tithing falls under the use of what was commerce then. That means tithing used elements of commerce, basically. So if we use what we consider commerce now, then money fits. It's our only means of commerce!

But that is as far as I go even when considering the Old Testament. As Esaias recognized, I do not teach tithing laws when I teach tithing. I teach you CAN give tithes of your money or not! You are not getting that point as others are. Yes, tithing IS USUALLY associated with OT law when people speak of tithing in their church, but I am not of that USUAL category in this instance.

You posted 9 passages about bartering. I posted 12 of money usage in exchange. I also posted some from the NT because people forget that the tithing was also active in the NT yet they used money extensively as well. Notice that even in the times of Moses, they had a system of lending with interests, and even during Jesus's time, they already had the concept of bankers, so it was setup even before Jesus' time. Money in trading was common from ancient times.

Gen 17:23 NKJV - (23) So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had said to him.
Gen 23:15-16 NKJV - (15) "My lord, listen to me; the land [is worth] four hundred shekels of silver. What [is] that between you and me? So bury your dead." (16) And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed out the silver for Ephron which he had named in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, currency of the merchants.
Gen 33:19 NKJV - (19) And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money.
Gen 42:25 NKJV - (25) Then Joseph gave a command to fill their sacks with grain, to restore every man's money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. Thus he did for them.
Exo 21:30, 34-35 NKJV - (30) "If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. ... (34) "the owner of the pit shall make [it] good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead [animal] shall be his. (35) "If one man's ox hurts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead [ox] they shall also divide.
Exo 22:17, 25 NKJV - (17) "If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. ... (25) "If you lend money to [any of] My people [who are] poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest.
Exo 30:16 NKJV - (16) "And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves."
2Ki 15:20 NKJV - (20) And Menahem exacted the money from Israel, from all the very wealthy, from each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and did not stay there in the land.
Mat 10:9 NKJV - (9) "Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts,
Mat 25:27 NKJV - (27) 'So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.

How exactly are you supporting your argument? that "bartering was more often or easier therefore that's why tithing was of agriculture products?" If that's your argument, then money must have been hard to get or exchange. However, that's not the case at all in the entire Bible.

You again missed the forest for the trees. MY ONLY POINT about tithes in reference to OT was that BARTER was involved which was PART of their system of currency, unlike us today. And what was bartered was also part of their tithing system.

I do not care what people tithed for back then, nor how they tithed and all the regulations involved. It has nothing to do with my view because I do not use that law to teach tithing as you repeatedly are refusing to acknowledge in my explanations, although I am repeating it over and over..

If the reason for tithing of agriculture products was that, then, why not God let the Israelites that were able to use money (assuming was a rare thing), just give money to the Levites for the tithe, instead of telling them to rebuy products in this passage?

I do not care because I do not use law and their points to teach tithing. Again, my point was tithing involved commerce use of bartering items not categorized as money. We use money for all our commerce.

Esaias saw my point, but for some reason you do not and refuse to .So you're tackling a million strawmen of my view when they are not me at all.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are so set that I am wrong that you assume my intention and miss what I actually meant. I was saying BARTERING was a form of commerce in those days along with money similar to us today, so tithing falls under the use of what was commerce then. That means tithing used elements of commerce, basically. So if we use what we consider commerce now, then money fits. It's our only means of commerce!

You keep accusing me of "stubbornness" using phrases like "open your eyes", "you are so set", "missing the forest for the trees", "tackling a million strawmen". Why not instead focus on discussing instead of belittling those that challenge your false teaching?

I'm going to answer that quote of yours and not waste my time on the rest of the post because it shows you didn't really read my answer.

BARTERING was a form of commerce in those days along with money similar to us today

False. I showed you money was use a lot as well, so the comparison you are using is misleading. Your comparison is attempting to show a similar volume of the commerce between bartering in the past, and money nowadays. That's just false. You don't know anything about volume of bartering in Biblical times. If frequency of scenarios is any indication, money in commerce had a much higher volume that bartering.

so tithing falls under the use of what was commerce then

False. I showed you tithing was ONLY of produces, and NEVER of money, even though money had a substantial participation in commerce. I also showed as an example of the opposite that money, and not produces, was required in the law for other topics like disputes. So, in either cases, it was not just a huge abstraction umbrella of "stuff use in commerce", but the law was very specific of WHAT stuff used in commerce.

That means tithing used elements of commerce, basically. So if we use what we consider commerce now, then money fits. It's our only means of commerce!

False reasoning. Money was used significantly in commerce, yet tithing was not of money, instead other laws involved money. The law was specific, and involved both forms of commerce: money exchange and bartering, and you could not interchange it: you could not present money to the priests for tithing. So your reasoning that you can abstract it out and apply it to today's main form of commerce is false. If the law of Moses was specific, even though money and bartering were both present, it is for a reason.

[mfblume]

False. I showed you money was use a lot as well, so the comparison you are using is misleading.

Misleading? I distinctly and plainly said bartering was used ALONG WITH MONEY. For you to say money was used as well, is to plainly indicate that you did not carefully read what I said when I wrote, "ALONG WITH MONEY."

Your comparison is attempting to show a similar volume of the commerce between bartering in the past, and money nowadays. That's just false. You don't know anything about volume of bartering in Biblical times. If frequency of scenarios is any indication, money in commerce had a much higher volume that bartering.

VOLUME OF BARTERING? I did not focus on VOLUME of bartering AT ALL. I said bartering was used. That's all.

False. I showed you tithing was ONLY of produces, and NEVER of money,

I never said tithing was of money Again, you are not even reading what I am saying. Because you repeatedly do not realize what I wrote, I repeat the note that you are not reading carefully what I am saying and will continue to make that point so long as you continue to not carefully read my words. I said tithing sed what was ALSO bartered, having noted that what was BARTERED was PART of their system of commerce. So my statement is not false.

So far in this single post, three times you stated something false about what I said when you fully did not read carefully enough to see that your accusations are unfounded.

Read it again: Tithing ONLY used items apart from money that were also bartered in those days. While MONEY was in their system of commerce, so was barter. And what was bartered was also tithed. So, TITHING FALLS UNDER THE USE OF WHAT WAS COMMERCE AT THAT TIME (bartered goods apart from money), while money was also used in commerce. But the point I made, which is not false, is that THE BARTERED of their commerce system was also used in tithing.

even though money had a substantial participation in commerce. I also showed as an example of the opposite that money, and not produces, was required in the law for other topics like disputes. So, in either cases, it was not just a huge abstraction umbrella of "stuff use in commerce", but the law was very specific of WHAT stuff used in commerce.

Barter and money were used in commerce.

False reasoning. Money was used significantly in commerce, yet tithing was not of money, instead other laws involved money.

I never said tithing was money. I said WE use MONEY ONLY in commerce, while they used BARTERED ITEMS AND MONEY in commerce.

You consistently are missing the point. Wow.

The law was specific, and involved both forms of commerce: money exchange and bartering, and you could not interchange it:

I never said you could interchange it.

you could not present money to the priests for tithing. So your reasoning that you can abstract it out and apply it to today's main form of commerce is false. If the law of Moses was specific, even though money and bartering were both present, it is for a reason.

I am not saying tithing from law can be applied to tithing today. I am saying that NONE OF THE LAWS OF TITHING are to be considered in tithing today, because I DO NOT BASE TITHING TODAY ON LAW.

You have misunderstand and falsely accused what I stated so much now that I am not even going to respond to you any more about this issue. You clearly cannot follow my points adequately for you to discuss this with me.

I should not have spent my time with this post, let alone anything further.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Misleading? I distinctly and plainly said bartering was used ALONG WITH MONEY. For you to say money was used as well, is to plainly indicate that you did not carefully read what I said when I wrote, "ALONG WITH MONEY."



VOLUME OF BARTERING? I did not focus on VOLUME of bartering AT ALL. I said bartering was used. That's all.



I never said tithing was of money Again, you are not even reading what I am saying. Because you repeatedly do not realize what I wrote, I repeat the note that you are not reading carefully what I am saying and will continue to make that point so long as you continue to not carefully read my words. I said tithing sed what was ALSO bartered, having noted that what was BARTERED was PART of their system of commerce. So my statement is not false.

So far in this single post, three times you stated something false about what I said when you fully did not read carefully enough to see that your accusations are unfounded.

Read it again: Tithing ONLY used items apart from money that were also bartered in those days. While MONEY was in their system of commerce, so was barter. And what was bartered was also tithed. So, TITHING FALLS UNDER THE USE OF WHAT WAS COMMERCE AT THAT TIME (bartered goods apart from money), while money was also used in commerce. But the point I made, which is not false, is that THE BARTERED of their commerce system was also used in tithing.



Barter and money were used in commerce.



I never said tithing was money. I said WE use MONEY ONLY in commerce, while they used BARTERED ITEMS AND MONEY in commerce.

You consistently are missing the point. Wow.



I never said you could interchange it.



I am not saying tithing from law can be applied to tithing today. I am saying that NONE OF THE LAWS OF TITHING are to be considered in tithing today, because I DO NOT BASE TITHING TODAY ON LAW.

You have misunderstand and falsely accused what I stated so much now that I am not even going to respond to you any more about this issue. You clearly cannot follow my points adequately for you to discuss this with me.

I should not have spent my time with this post, let alone anything further.

I believe I understand your point, and what I keep saying is that your teaching is false logic. It is very clear that your justification for using money for tithing nowadays instead of produce is flaw. Let me say it in other words, your application from tithing of produce, into a principle, into a contextualization to modern days, into tithing of money, is flaw.

We agree on most facts, and that's why you keep saying "you don't get it, I'm not contradicting that, and not saying this or that, don't bring that up because I don't base it on that...". But I'm bringing the facts to show you how the reasoning you use fails when all things considered, and that's what you are not seeing in my posts. Your logic, your judgment of the facts, your application and contextualization is the problem I'm showing in my posts.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I believe I understand your point, and what I keep saying is that your teaching is false logic. It is very clear that your justification for using money for tithing nowadays instead of produce is flaw. Let me say it in other words, your application from tithing of produce, into a principle, into a contextualization to modern days, into tithing of money, is flaw.

Please read this carefully:

I do not use Law to teach tithing. THAT is what you do not get. The idea of application from produce to money does not relate to what I am saying at all, because that demands that I teach law and adapt it to our day, which I do not do.

Wow. Just wow.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please read this carefully:

I do not use Law to teach tithing. THAT is what you do not get. The idea of application from produce to money does not relate to what I am saying at all, because that demands that I teach law and adapt it to our day, which I do not do.

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not taking about how you teaching it in your congregation. That's not my business. I'm talking about what you have said in this thread.

You started it with a application connection between tithing money and the OT tithing of produce and animals which you say are "bartering" items. You said:

Originally Posted by mfblume

But since bartering was in their system, things that could be bartered -- food -- were also implemented into that which was tithed. We do not barter food or items. So, we can tithe with money, and God can bless because we give in faith, not due to obligation for fear of a curse.

You deny your own words. I can't have a discussion with that. "Wow. Just wow"

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not taking about how you teaching it in your congregation. That's not my business. I'm talking about what you have said in this thread.

You started it with a application connection between tithing money and the OT tithing of produce and animals which you say are "bartering" items. You said:



You deny your own words. I can't have a discussion with that. "Wow. Just wow"

Coksiw is correct.

Also we have the fact that in the OT tithing that was ordained by God (and not by pastors) that the tithe was nearly exclusively food.

Nobody typically spends 100% of their income on food. It is usually ten percent.

In 2021, U.S. consumers spent an average of 10.3 percent of their disposable personal income on food—divided between food at home (5.2 percent) and food away from home (5.1 percent).
https://www.ers.usda.gov › food-pri...

In the clip I’ve posted above, according to the usda.gov website, in 2021 the average income used to buy food was 10.3%. So, in effect a tithe that was equivalent in value would be barely more than one percent of our income. So when Brother Blume gets ten percent of their income? That’s roughly ten times the value of the OT tithe. It’s really not at all like they tithed “back then”.

Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
I teach that people can give tithes and I don't use the Old Testament to prove it or support it. I just say that they gave tithes back then and you can do that today as well.

Brother Blume,
You really can’t see the difference in the cost of tithing on your whole income, versus one tenth of your food budget? Really?!

People also bartered glass beads and whiskey with Native Americans. Would you be okay with accepting tithing from them instead of money?

I think you just don’t want to see it.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Coksiw is correct.

Also we have the fact that in the OT tithing that was ordained by God (and not by pastors) that the tithe was nearly exclusively food.

Nobody typically spends 100% of their income on food. It is usually ten percent

.

Nobody? I spend way over 10% of my income on food. More like 25%.

Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
I teach that people can give tithes and I don't use the Old Testament to prove it or support it. I just say that they gave tithes back then and you can do that today as well.

I agree with this totally. Tithe simply means tenth, so a tenth of anything could be considered a tithe.. The law commanded that a tenth was to be given of the land to the levites because Levi didn’t inherit any portion. that was tithing under the law. We are not under the law, therefore we are not commanded to tithe. Although that doesn’t mean we cannot freely tithe money to support the ministry of the local church.

Brother Blume,
You really can’t see the difference in the cost of tithing on your whole income, versus one tenth of your food budget? Really?!

Tithe freely is the point being made here so if you want to tithe out of your food budget go ahead. It doesn’t matter. If you think harvest of the lands of Israel where only consumed by the landowner then that doesn’t sound right.

Genesis 13:2
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

Rich in cattle? It seems that cattle was considered a wealth and not just a food. Logic tells me this, commercial farmers today derive income from their crops. Matter of fact food is the most important resource for Humanity. We eat it, but we also trade it for other things. It was no different in ancient times. Their crops where their livelihood.

Again no condemnation for those who don’t, but I still support it to be a good percentage to be a part of my personal budget and would recommend it.

People also bartered glass beads and whiskey with Native Americans. Would you be okay with accepting tithing from them instead of money?

Do you think think beads and whiskey would be beneficial to the ministry of your local church today? Would Beads and whiskey help with VCB for your church kids, would they pay the mortgage on a sanctuary to worship in, what about utilities, gas for church van, musical equipment, tracts and bibles for outreach, help for struggling families in the church, etc..?

I think you just don’t want to see it.

I think you don’t get it. This isn’t about some doctrinal formula that you have to give to be saved. It is about giving so the church can be more of an impact in this world. I am not certain, but I am wondering if you are against church orthodoxy all together. Maybe you think we should only worship from house to house?

We may not have a mandate to give tithes of our incomes, but we are commanded to be fruitful. If we choose to separate our Christian walk from our finances then we are gonna be in trouble. God must be Lord over all in our lives and we may not agree on what is necessary for ministry in todays world. Therefore, you may not find it necessary to support local church ministries. If we don’t use are resources to reach our cities with this gospel message, I do think we will be lost. That is not about tithing, but about faithfulness to God’s commission.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You keep accusing me of "stubbornness" using phrases like "open your eyes", "you are so set", "missing the forest for the trees", "tackling a million strawmen". Why not instead focus on discussing instead of belittling those that challenge your false teaching?

I'm going to answer that quote of yours and not waste my time on the rest of the post because it shows you didn't really read my answer.



False. I showed you money was use a lot as well, so the comparison you are using is misleading. Your comparison is attempting to show a similar volume of the commerce between bartering in the past, and money nowadays. That's just false. You don't know anything about volume of bartering in Biblical times. If frequency of scenarios is any indication, money in commerce had a much higher volume that bartering.



False. I showed you tithing was ONLY of produces, and NEVER of money, even though money had a substantial participation in commerce. I also showed as an example of the opposite that money, and not produces, was required in the law for other topics like disputes. So, in either cases, it was not just a huge abstraction umbrella of "stuff use in commerce", but the law was very specific of WHAT stuff used in commerce.



False reasoning. Money was used significantly in commerce, yet tithing was not of money, instead other laws involved money. The law was specific, and involved both forms of commerce: money exchange and bartering, and you could not interchange it: you could not present money to the priests for tithing. So your reasoning that you can abstract it out and apply it to today's main form of commerce is false. If the law of Moses was specific, even though money and bartering were both present, it is for a reason.

How did they even obtain money if it wasn’t from the land? Why did Abraham want all that cattle? Did Abraham need large herds soley to feed his family or was it because it was a source of commerce. Agriculture always has been and always will be a vital source of commerce. Before the industrial revolution throughout the world it always has probably been the most primary sources of commerce. Unfortunately the monetary system we are in right now often causes people to miss the need of agricultural products. People think because they have money that there will always be food at the grocery store.

I think the point Bro. Blume makes, stands up. Most of Israel’s society was made up of agricultural resources. Sure there where craftsmen, among them, but by far the most essential resource used for commerce was food. They didn’t have supermarkets and monetary system in place as we have today. Obviously, the transactions made for agricultural products where made through the barter of goods, services or precious metals (often called money). Printed money and minted coinage likely may not existed during the period the law of Moses was given.

[Amanah]

Actually they carried part of their wealth in the form of jewelry such as they wore to mint a golden calf from, and coins such as Joseph was sold into slavery for. For what its worth.