The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Sorry I was still editing my post. This is what I meant, in here:
2 Co 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

coksiw and Nicodemus,

I’m not sure 2 Corinthians 9:7 is a good reference for a discussion on tithing. This is discussing an offering “for the saints”. It is not an offering for pastors or elders exclusively. Of course they were eligible to partake of the offering, because they were saints as well. This offering is mentioned several times in Paul’s letters. It was for the poor saints at Jerusalem, because they were experiencing a famine.

Now for general giving, or even for giving alms, it may well be relevant. But for ministerial support, it is not necessarily meant in that context, in my opinion.

[Michael The Disciple]

Honestly, I just wanted to make sense of Acts 20 and 1 Tim 5.

I think Coksiw reconciled it pretty good. The local ministry should work a job. The saints should at least periodically give them an offering for their extra time involvement laboring in the word.

If there are apostles or evangelists they should be counted worthy of full time support. And yet even they could be like Paul and work as is needed.

So do you think that most of the assemblies today are in rebellion to Gods word?

If they teach a "tithing" system yes. If they dont teach local ministry to work yes.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think I can find consistency now between Acts 20 and 1 Ti 5.

[1Ti 5:3-4, 17 NKJV] 3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. ... 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
[1Ti 6:1 NKJV] 1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and [His] doctrine may not be blasphemed.


The use of Honor here is as in "honor your parents". It means having them in high esteem and help them out as needed or even with gifts sometimes. Pretty much treating them as parents. So It is not a hiring, but support them as needed.

It seems to me that the support for full-time ministry is exclusive to apostles, who have to leave their job to go to other places. It looks to me that co-location (hospitality) was the method they used. And in that house they would be supported with expenses (food, clothing, etc...) until they were done with the church planting.
Paul himself did co-location but tried not to be a burden (food, clothing, etc...) to no one in the targeted city but instead use the offering from other churches and tent-making.

This goes in line with first-century synagogues. They didn't hire full-time ministers for the local assembly. They had vocations. In fact they were highly recommended to have a secular income: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi (see the Vocations of Rabbis section). I am not saying we should follow their steps exactly but it does give a good context of the cultural expectations around the new testament.

I also scanned the first-century church documents for full-time local ministers and I found nothing. What I found was actually a warning against any prophet or teacher asking for money.

Wow how things have changed since them. What surprises me is that you get that message so strong that you can't have church without full-time local ministers. The synagogues did it, first-century church did it, and even in my church I see a lot of people ministering (even pastoring) without a wage. In fact, one of those unsalaried pastors got many other churches started in the area we were doing church planting. They are all moved to congregate and serve because of their love for God and his work.

I think you are right or at least mostly right about this. It refers to support. I think it is referring to mostly food. But being a help. In whatever way was needed most. My point about this is that Honour, really means more than just speaking highly of someone. It means supporting them to some degree.

It probably didn’t mean paying their electric bill or heating bill in Bible times, but it could be a way of doing the same thing today.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If they dont teach local ministry to work yes.

What does the above mean?

[diakonos]

Man, those other Apostles were just stupid. Appointing deacons to do petty things so they themselves could continue in the Word and in prayer. What were they thinking?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Man, those other Apostles were just stupid. Appointing deacons to do petty things so they themselves could continue in the Word and in prayer. What were they thinking?

Peter went back to secular work, catches a huge catch. Then Jesus tells Peter to drag the catch over to Him. Then asks Peter if Peter loved Jesus more than Peter's big haul of fish. Jesus told Peter that he would now catch men. Changing Peter's vocation. But after the death, burial, and resurrection, Peter gets the other guys to go back to fishing. Which wasn't Jesus' plan.

[Tithesmeister]

I guess I’m not understanding the difficulty of reconciling the two passages. They both are about helping the weak, or less fortunate. The only difference I see is that one is the local church being helped, specifically by the elders, and the other is the gentile churches binding together in a concerted effort to help the mother church at Jerusalem.

I do believe that this may have been God’s way of dealing with the prejudice of the Jews toward the Gentiles. It would perhaps be more difficult to have a haughty attitude towards the Gentiles, when they are sustaining your very life.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

I believe you are wrong here brother. Why does a person have to give (to the church”)? Why can they not be receivers? Did the Grecian widows give? Are you a giver? Or are you really a receiver?

Example:
If you give tithes, (to the church), as you say. And you give ten thousand dollars on an income (from the church) of one hundred thousand dollars. You didn’t actually give to the church. You actually took or received ninety thousand dollars from the church. It is really a math problem.

Right?

Originally Posted by mfblume

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


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

Paul is referring to himself as an apostle here, specifically. You are extrapolating that, to the broader meaning of ministers, which, if understood in the proper context of the scripture, could mean anyone who ministered, (served) from widows to pastors or elders.

Notice the first verse . . .

1Cor.9

[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Also, notice what word is not there. The minister word. Coincidentally, neither is the pastor word. Paul is comparing himself to the other apostles, because they evidently questioned his apostleship.

[3] Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
[4] Have we not power to eat and to drink?
[5] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

He was making a very narrow comparison between himself and other apostles. This is not a comparison between himself and the local pastor, or himself as a pastor.

Can you see the word minister or pastor in this passage?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You need to understand what I believe in order to understand my point, which I should have explained earlier. I do not believe we have to give ten percent and no more or no less. The New Covenant does not lay that out. It teaches to give according to your faith, and encourages folks to stretch their faith. So, if one gives ten per cent, they could just as rightfully given 3.684 per cent, or 85 per cent. With that having been said, someone can give tithes since it is a good percentage for that person. Why did God choose the ten per cent and associate it with all the legalties that the Law demanded? COuld it be that ten per cent is reasonable?

The two questions I have put in bold print above are relevant questions. Allow me to answer, and even expound on them.

Question 1. Why did God make it ten percent? The biblical answer is that God gave them the land. It is called the promised land for a reason. God required them to give a tithe of the increase of the seed of the land, and the flocks and herds that were supported by the land. The Levites didn’t have any increase of the land to tithe on. Why? Because they didn’t have any land (originally). Since they didn’t have any land, God gave them (and the widows, orphans and strangers) the tithe of the land from the other tribes that did have land. Remember, no land, no tithe of the land. Maybe, this will help . . .

Lev.27

[30] And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.

The tithe was about the land. Most people miss that part. If you didn’t own land, you did not tithe. If you owned land that did not produce, you did not tithe. If you were making tents, or otherwise earning wages from ANY thing other than crops, flocks and herds, you did not tithe. The tithe was connected to the land. The land that God gave the Israelites.

Question 2. Is it reasonable? To begin with, you have to remember what the tithe was ten percent (or one tenth) of. It was essentially one tenth of their food. Not exclusively, but mostly. That is how God ordained the tithe. Of course, it was reasonable. He gave them the land, remember? So, all he required of them was the tenth of the increase that the land produced.

So let me say this. Forget about the church for a moment. Brother Blume, if you give me fertile farm land (as God gave the Israelites) I would be happy to return the tenth of what that land produced. Cows, crops, sheep etc.. I actually have a friend who owns a thousand acres of prime (row crop) farm land. He owns it through inheritance from his wife’s family. Notice I didn’t call him a farmer. He is not. He allows a farmer to farm it for . . .

Twenty percent of the crops. So, yes. Ten percent is reasonable. My friend actually told me that his father in law talked to him before he died, and he told him that twenty percent of the crop was the fairest way to the farmer and the owner. He told my friend to never rent for cash. That way you share with the farmer in good years as well as lean years. So, if twenty percent is fair, ten percent seems downright reasonable.

I hope I didn’t confuse anyone with this answer.

So, now let’s compare the “new man-made” method of tithing , to God’s way that He ordained. Instead of the tenth of your food. It has become an income tithe. So for all practical purposes, it is one tenth of your house, your utility bills, your children’s college fund, your retirement fund, your mechanic bills, the gas you put in your car, your medical bills, and your dentist bills, your taxes?, your vacation funds, anything you inherit, if you have a flat tire, or if you help your children out. These things, and many more, are considered titheable.

Do you see the difference? I could go on!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household spends about ten percent of its income on food. It fluctuates from about eight percent on the low side, to about fifteen percent on the upside depending on the year and the cost of food. So if we use a hundred thousand dollars a year for an example , if your food cost is ten thousand (ten percent of one hundred thousand) a tithe of the food cost would be one thousand dollars. On the other hand, under your new improved “man made tithing system” your tithing cost would be ten thousand dollars on the same hundred thousand dollars.

So, Gods way was much more reasonable, in my humble opinion.

What do you think?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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



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

Brother, you mention tithes three times in these brief comments in reference to 1 Corinthians chapter nine. In my Bible the word tithe is not mentioned there at all.

Could you help me out with where you are seeing tithe in this chapter?

Is it the ox? Does ox mean tithe to you?

Which word is it that you are taking to mean tithe?

Because, I just don’t see tithe in this.

“Restricted to tithes?” I hardly think so. At least we agree on that.

How bout “Is it even talking about tithes?”

The answer to that is no. Paul is not EVEN talking about tithes here. If he were, he would have said so. Instead of carrying on about oxen and other things.

You seem to think that Paul was afraid to mention the word tithe. Do you believe Paul wrote Hebrews? Because Hebrews does mention tithes. What a coincidence! Hebrews was written to the people that WERE supposed to tithe, under the old covenant. Hmmm. I wonder why tithes is mentioned in a writing to the Hebrews, but never in the writings to the Gentiles (ie Corinthians and other letters to Gentiles).

Brother, I know you said you don’t believe that tithing is according to the law. And you don’t tithe, or receive tithes because of the law. So, is it just a coincidence that you are a pastor, and you also, for some reason receive tithes? Do any widows in your church also receive tithes? Not because of the law, of course, but just by coincidence?

How did that just happen to work out?

Do you do any teaching on tithing? At all?

If so, what do you teach?