History of Tithes in the Church

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You are being rude. I enjoy dialogue with you. We have come this far without being offensive, so let’s not start now.

I apologize. I’ll try to be more subtle.

There is a lot of time between Leviticus and second Kings. Hundreds of years. I am sure that coinage is coming into the picture by the time of this passage. I was referring to earlier times in Israel’s history. Shortly from the time of this passage Israel is going to be no more.

There are at least three units of money mentioned in Leviticus. I’ll try to find the scripture to support this later.

You are right that money was modeled after weights. A shekel was a weight. A half shekel was a bekah. A whole shekel was twenty gerahs. A gerah was, I believe, the least coin of the Leviticus time. It would be somewhat similar to our penny.

However, there was a difference obviously in a shekel weight of gold and a shekel weight of silver etc..

Many of the monetary units of today were based on weight originally. I believe the Mexican peso and the British pound are examples of this.

And sincere congratulations on the baby y’all are expecting. You have a nice size family. You are being fruitful. God is blessing.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Just a reminder to Brother Blume and Good Samaritan. There is a question in this post that I don’t believe either of you answered.

Once again,

Did Paul teach the elders in plain language to work with their hands and support the weak in the church?

Yes?

No?

Please respond.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

If a man labour in the gospel, he should be supported.

Paul goes on to say:

1 Corinthians 9:15-18
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Ministry should not be about money. If people must make a certain amount to live they should be willing to work with their own two hands.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

If a man labour in the gospel, he should be supported.

Paul goes on to say:

1 Corinthians 9:15-18
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Ministry should not be about money. If people must make a certain amount to live they should be willing to work with their own two hands.

Which did not answer the question at all. Go back and read the question again and give a simple answer.

1Corinthians 9 is not about tithes, and Paul was asserting his right as an apostle, not a pastor.

Notice three things about this passage that you referenced.

1. In verse one Paul asked the question; am I not an apostle?”

He was addressing the church at Corinth, which presumably included multiple pastor/elders. He was basing his defense on the fact that he was an apostle, not a pastor/elder. Paul was traveling and as such had additional expenses. Everyone knows that it costs much more to travel than to abide at home in one place. Paul was being questioned about being deserving by the church, which was most likely being conducted by the pastor/elders.

And, once again,
2. We are not seeing ANY reference to money here. This is about food and drink. Carnal things. Bodily needs and appetites.

3. Paul mentions the priest eating from the altar. He mentions the ox. He talks about the person who tends the flocks partaking of the milk. He talks about soldiers GOING to war.

The soldier doesn’t receive tithes, tithes weren’t put on the altar, even the ox, whom the law protected (think about that) was entitled to eat as much as he wanted, but he couldn’t take it home with him, and of course, he wasn’t entitled to tithes.

This chapter is probably the best argument that Paul himself as well as the pastors, were not entitled to tithing. After all he could have just said, “I get all the tithes” (like a lot of pastors do today.) But he didn’t.

Surely you have to wonder, why Paul never mentions tithes in this chapter about supporting an apostle or evangelist.

Well, Paul was highly educated in the law. He studied under Gamaliel, the premier teacher of law. He had his credentials

Why didn’t he appeal to the law of tithing, instead of muzzling the ox?

Because he well knew it didn’t apply. Surely that’s the case.

[Tithesmeister]

I’m going to post here, without addressing anyone in particular, to avoid offending anyone. Comments and response are of course always welcome, especially if they reference relevant scriptures.

Why do I persist in holding the line on tithing? Why is it such a big deal?

1. I have a reason that is personal, that I won’t get into just yet.

2. Because I am apostolic.

I have been accused many times of being stingy, of not wanting to give. This mostly by people who don’t know me at all. They believe that it can’t be because I’m actually defending scripture.

But I’m apostolic. I know practically everyone professes to be apostolic on here, but they don’t align with the apostles on this very important subject. Like it or not, we usually have a limited amount of financial resources. I don’t believe most on here are stingy or that pastors are all greedy (although some certainly are, in my opinion). When we give tithes, and maybe some offering on top of that, we usually are pretty much tapped out. We don’t have a lot left over to “ “give as unto the Lord” as Jesus exhorted us to do in Matthew 25:32-46. In this parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus tells us very specifically how to give “as unto the Lord”. He mentions the cold, the sick, the hungry, even the ones in prison, as well as thirsty children.

What Jesus does NOT mention in this parable, is giving to the church, or to the pastor. He must have forgotten.

But, many times, the pastor will call on us to “give as unto the Lord” when tithes and offerings are collected. Yet he almost never teaches giving from the sheep and goats parable. Hmmmm . . .

Meanwhile the faithful have given probably more than they can afford in a way that is other than the way Jesus taught us to give.

So why is it that I continue to teach about money not being the way they typically supported ministry?

Because the apostles taught about the perils of leadership that were “given to filthy lucre”.

Money was the reason Samuel’s sons were corrupted. It’s not a new thing.

1Sam.8

[1] And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
[2] Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba.
[3] And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

In fact the word lucre is found only six times in the KJV. Every time it is in reference to leadership. Samuels sons are the first. The other five times are a caution to the church regarding leadership. And they mention lucre with an adjective attached. Filthy.

Lucre has dishonest connotations. Filthy lucre, well it’s lucre that’s filthy. Lucre=Bad, Filthy lucre= worse

Below are the other references to lucre.

1Tim.3

[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[8] Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Tit.1

[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
[11] Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
1Pet.5

[2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.

So why all the fuss about money?

It’s the apostolic thing to do.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Which did not answer the question at all. Go back and read the question again and give a simple answer.

My answer was yes

1Corinthians 9 is not about tithes, and Paul was asserting his right as an apostle, not a pastor.

1 Corinthians 9:14
Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

He was asserting his right because of laboring in the gospel. It wasn’t because of a title, but because of a service. The reason you don’t muzzle the ox isn’t because it is a ox, but because he is the beast working in your field. I don’t even need scripture to teach me if someone is laboring for me, then I need to somehow show appreciation for that.

1. In verse one Paul asked the question; am I not an apostle?”

He was addressing the church at Corinth, which " presumably included multiple pastor/elders. He was basing his defense on the fact that he was an apostle, not a pastor/elder. Paul was traveling and as such had additional expenses. Everyone knows that it costs much more to travel than to abide at home in one place. Paul was being questioned about being deserving by the church, which was most likely being conducted by the pastor/elders.

We don’t have any idea how many elders and pastors where set in place. Nor do we know what arrangements where in place for them. Vs. 14 was not exclusively for apostles only. Paul was not instructing them for selfish reasons, but because it was the right thing to do.

And, once again,
2. We are not seeing ANY reference to money here. This is about food and drink. Carnal things. Bodily needs and appetites.

Carnal things are physical things, food, clothes, shelter, transportation, etc…. Anything in the physical that is needed. If people wanted to give the preacher groceries or clothes, Work on his house or car, that is fine. I think giving tithes and offering into the church is much more practical.

3. Paul mentions the priest eating from the altar. He mentions the ox. He talks about the person who tends the flocks partaking of the milk. He talks about soldiers GOING to war.

The soldier doesn’t receive tithes, tithes weren’t put on the altar, even the ox, whom the law protected (think about that) was entitled to eat as much as he wanted, but he couldn’t take it home with him, and of course, he wasn’t entitled to tithes

All those are OT laws, and are not NT rules. We glean from mosaic laws because of the principles that they establish. Is there any NT scripture that forbids giving money? This has gone from not tithing, to not giving money at all.

This chapter is probably the best argument that Paul himself as well as the pastors, were not entitled to tithing. After all he could have just said, “I get all the tithes” (like a lot of pastors do today.) But he didn’t.

Surely you have to wonder, why Paul never mentions tithes in this chapter about supporting an apostle or evangelist.

Probably because tithing wasn’t being taught. I have not argued anywhere that they where teaching tithing. My only point through the entirety of this thread is that it is a good method for supporting church ministries that we have in modern Christianity. Is there one example in the NT where believers had a temple designated for Christian worship? I don’t think there is anything referencing a church building, but does that mean it is forbidden? I don’t think it does.

Well, Paul was highly educated in the law. He studied under Gamaliel, the premier teacher of law. He had his credentials

Why didn’t he appeal to the law of tithing, instead of muzzling the ox?

Because he well knew it didn’t apply. Surely that’s the case.

We are not under any law. Paul was not going to teach the law, and that is not how I teach my views on tithing anyways. We have liberty to give any way we want, and we have liberty to teach principles that are contained throughout the entire Bible. I am not accusing anyone of sin because they choose not to tithe. I maintain that we are to give as the Spirit leads us, but tithing happens to be where I felt led

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m going to post here, without addressing anyone in particular, to avoid offending anyone. Comments and response are of course always welcome, especially if they reference relevant scriptures.

Why do I persist in holding the line on tithing? Why is it such a big deal?

1. I have a reason that is personal, that I won’t get into just yet.

2. Because I am apostolic.

I have been accused many times of being stingy, of not wanting to give. This mostly by people who don’t know me at all. They believe that it can’t be because I’m actually defending scripture.

But I’m apostolic. I know practically everyone professes to be apostolic on here, but they don’t align with the apostles on this very important subject. Like it or not, we usually have a limited amount of financial resources. I don’t believe most on here are stingy or that pastors are all greedy (although some certainly are, in my opinion). When we give tithes, and maybe some offering on top of that, we usually are pretty much tapped out. We don’t have a lot left over to “ “give as unto the Lord” as Jesus exhorted us to do in Matthew 25:32-46. In this parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus tells us very specifically how to give “as unto the Lord”. He mentions the cold, the sick, the hungry, even the ones in prison, as well as thirsty children.

What Jesus does NOT mention in this parable, is giving to the church, or to the pastor. He must have forgotten.

But, many times, the pastor will call on us to “give as unto the Lord” when tithes and offerings are collected. Yet he almost never teaches giving from the sheep and goats parable. Hmmmm . . .

Meanwhile the faithful have given probably more than they can afford in a way that is other than the way Jesus taught us to give.

So why is it that I continue to teach about money not being the way they typically supported ministry?

Because the apostles taught about the perils of leadership that were “given to filthy lucre”.

Money was the reason Samuel’s sons were corrupted. It’s not a new thing.

1Sam.8

[1] And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
[2] Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba.
[3] And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

In fact the word lucre is found only six times in the KJV. Every time it is in reference to leadership. Samuels sons are the first. The other five times are a caution to the church regarding leadership. And they mention lucre with an adjective attached. Filthy.

Lucre has dishonest connotations. Filthy lucre, well it’s lucre that’s filthy. Lucre=Bad, Filthy lucre= worse

Below are the other references to lucre.

1Tim.3

[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[8] Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Tit.1

[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
[11] Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
1Pet.5

[2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.

So why all the fuss about money?

It’s the apostolic thing to do.

Although, I don’t interpret things as strictly as you do, this was a good post. FTR, I haven’t thought anyone was stingy on this thread because of there stance on the subject.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

My only point through the entirety of this thread is that it is a good method for supporting church ministries that we have in modern Christianity. Is there one example in the NT where believers had a temple designated for Christian worship? I don’t think there is anything referencing a church building, but does that mean it is forbidden? I don’t think it does.

...except when the practice hinders God's commandments. Here is an example of man-made commandments that they also attempted to make it a Bible doctrine but ended up invalidating God's commandments.

Mar 7:9-13 NKJV - (9) He said to them, "[All too] well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. (10) "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' (11) "But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] Corban"--' (that is, a gift [to God]), (12) "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, (13) "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

These are the commandments you invalidate with the false teaching of tithing:

* "Honor your father and your mother", some poor or low middle class families would need to decide whether to pay tithes or effectively support their needed parents (a family may have up to four parents to help). Yet, they may choose to do tithing because they believe incorrectly it is a commandment from God above all things as taught by the preacher.

* "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Some poor or low middle class families may incur into debt so they can keep paying their tithes, because, again, they believe is a commandment from God above all things, as the preacher told them.

* "(15) If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, (16) and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what [does it] profit?". You know, again, because they are being told by the preacher that the tithing goes above all things, so giving to ministry goes before giving to others in need. Low middle class and poor people can't afford to do both.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

If a man labour in the gospel, he should be supported.

Paul goes on to say:

1 Corinthians 9:15-18
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Ministry should not be about money. If people must make a certain amount to live they should be willing to work with their own two hands.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as result of word meaning changes over the years.

Apostles (or evangelists), because of their traveling planting churches, do need support. It makes a lot of sense. That's what we also see in Acts that Bishops are told to work, but Apostles are supported.

The question comes to what Jesus meant with: those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

What is "preach the Gospel". It is not just standing from a pulpit and "preach" which really means nowadays "any religious speech". Preach the Gospel in the Bible has an evangelistic appeal, and it is about starting congregations of disciples. This is the context of these words:

Mat 10:7-10 NKJV - (7) "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (8) "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (9) "Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, (10) "nor bag for [your] journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.

Same in Luke:

Luk 10:3-9 NKJV - (3) "Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. (4) "Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. (5) "But whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.' (6) "And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. (7) "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. (8) "Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. (9) "And heal the sick there, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'

That explains why we see Paul writing about apostles being supported so they don't have to work, while also writing about Bishops needing to work.

Now, the reason why pastors do feel overwhelmed and look for an income so bad is because their church governance to begin with it is not biblical: you are supposed to have a team of elders (different than church boards, BTW), not a single man show. This is another negative consequence of false doctrines, BTW. It is hard on the Pastor's family and it is hard on the congregation, and makes the congregation vulnerable to the shortcomings and flaws of one man.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as result of word meaning changes over the years.

Apostles (or evangelists), because of their traveling planting churches, do need support. It makes a lot of sense. That's what we also see in Acts that Bishops are told to work, but Apostles are supported

.

I agree there is a lot of misunderstanding on the terms. The reason for this I believe is that there is room for multiple interpretations. Since there is room for multiple interpretations, there is probably going to be some grace needed in these areas.

What is "preach the Gospel". It is not just standing from a pulpit and "preach" which really means nowadays "any religious speech". Preach the Gospel in the Bible has an evangelistic appeal, and it is about starting congregations of disciples. This is the context of these words:

Mat 10:7-10 NKJV - (7) "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (8) "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (9) "Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, (10) "nor bag for [your] journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.

Same in Luke:

Luk 10:3-9 NKJV - (3) "Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. (4) "Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. (5) "But whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.' (6) "And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. (7) "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. (8) "Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. (9) "And heal the sick there, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'

That explains why we see Paul writing about apostles being supported so they don't have to work, while also writing about Bishops needing to work.

I think you are making a doctrine out of something that served a practical purpose. The church must be progressive and adaptable. I am not meaning compromising morality issues, but meaning we must be flexible in our methods in order to be the most effective.

A pastor of a small church with fewer obligations, has no reason not to work. Standing behind a pulpit a few times a week and occasionally paying visits doesn’t necessitate a full time salary to support your labor. I do think people should give honor where it is due, even in smaller capacities.

Now , the reason why pastors do feel overwhelmed and look for an income so bad is because their church governance to begin with it is not biblical: you are supposed to have a team of elders (different than church boards, BTW), not a single man show. This is another negative consequence of false doctrines, BTW. It is hard on the Pastor's family and it is hard on the congregation, and makes the congregation vulnerable to the shortcomings and flaws of one man.

I think it is more because working in smaller churches with limited resources puts more burden on the one pastor. A church of 20 people doesn’t need a board of pastors, but the twenty needs to work together to fulfill the role of being that city on a hill so that they expand the kingdom. Essentially pastors should be trying to work themselves out of a job. Trying to cause them who are taught to become teachers themselves. The number of elders/pastors should be dependent on the size of the church. Although, most churches still retain a senior pastor, I am seeing more and more pastoral staffing that is similar to what you are describing. Also people should not forget them that have given their lives to laboring in the gospel. What happens to preachers who have sacrificed profitable careers to labour in the harvest for crumbs? There reward is being laid up, but it is an offense for anyone who takes advantage of someone else and this doesn’t matter what side of the pulpit you are on.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

.



I think you are making a doctrine out of something that served a practical purpose.

Or is he just "gleaning"?