The Crux of the Pro-tithe Argument

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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?

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

Just in general, it is about truth. We should start there. The tithe doctrine that is commonly taught is a culture of lies. It’s not just about money. It’s about souls. Sometimes I think people don’t get that part. And it’s not just about the souls of the tithers, but also the tithees.

Are pastors who lie about tithes going to heaven? The Bible clearly says that ALL liars will not.

Salvation is free. If you believe Jesus. If you believe some pastors, salvation costs ten percent of your gross, or net income. Which is just gross.

Do you believe that there are people that leave the church because of aggressive funds raising?

If they do, are they wrong to instinctively believe that the church is more concerned with their money, than they are their salvation?

Do you believe salvation is free? Without cost?

Is it wise to believe that God is going to give a pass on lying, if the church profits from the lies?

I’m not trying to be harsh, but the word of God consistently undermines the commonly taught tithe doctrine. And the ones doing the teaching, can’t even agree on what the truth is. Because it is not the truth. So it becomes a matter of who will follow the truth, and who will distort the truth, and how much.

Do you realize brother, that you seem to be justifying something that you can’t support with scripture?

What if we followed the same logic with adultery? Well, some people are getting saved, even though the pastor is indulging in adultery. Homosexuality? Drunkenness?

Where would you draw the line? What sins are we going to decide are allowable, regardless of what the Bible says?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Why would Paul bring up the oxen? It says “thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth the corn”.

When Paul says, if I sow things that are spiritual is it some great thing that I reap your carnal things, what does that mean for us today?

Paul says those that minister about holy things live of the things in the temple. Again for us today what does that mean?

We can go round and round with this tithe debate, this group believes a Pastor has no right to tithe. This group believes a Pastor has every right.

Like I said before if the church is content for their Pastor to receive their tithe, who’s wrong? Are they not free to decide?

If the Pastor gets up and starts threatening them with tithe and places undo burdens on them for something that’s not Godly, God will judge them. I’ve seen it! Church’s that had many members, very wealthy are now down to a couple saints and the Pastor is no longer there. Imagine going to church with your family in a facility that can seat 400 and there is only 25 of you.

God is not mocked...

Maybe learn Wisdom, if the church is content with their Pastor as full time and they pay him tithe, wage, salary, the gospel is being preached. If your Pastor isn’t a full time minister and doesn’t receive any tithe, wage, or salary the gospel is still being preached.

Brother, you asked some questions. I don’t want to ignore them. But could you attempt to give your answer first?

What does this ox have to do with tithing?

Is money carnal?

What are tithes doing on the altar?

Remember, we are talking about tithes. Tithe has a specific meaning. I realize that some are trying to blur the lines when it comes to the definition of tithes. But God defined the tithe. It is not up to us to change his definition. We are prohibited from doing so.

And, I hate to be facetious, but I am still . . .




Waiting . . .

For a scripture to be quoted, that says a pastor is entitled to tithes. I will accept Old Testament scripture or New Testament scripture. I am begging for a scripture that says being a pastor, in itself, entitled anyone, at anytime, to receive tithes.

Just

One

[Tithesmeister]

Here is a message on tithes, where the pastor (Greg Riggen) preaches for two hours trying to convince his congregation that he is entitled to tithes. Aaaand they will be lost for not tithing, if they should choose to not do so. He claims to be fighting false doctrine, all while preaching . . .

False doctrine!!

He claims that it is impossible to be saved if you don’t tithe. PLEASE listen to this sermon, if you think I exaggerate the doctrine of tithing being salvific, according to some pastors.

http://www.apostolicvault.com/admin/...ly_tithe_1.mp3

Brother Nicodemus, perhaps you can get some pro tithes ideas from this sermon?

Enjoy!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Interesting . . .

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Here is a message on tithes, where the pastor (Greg Riggen) preaches for two hours trying to convince his congregation that he is entitled to tithes. Aaaand they will be lost for not tithing, if they should choose to not do so. He claims to be fighting false doctrine, all while preaching . . .

False doctrine!!

He claims that it is impossible to be saved if you don’t tithe. PLEASE listen to this sermon, if you think I exaggerate the doctrine of tithing being salvific, according to some pastors.

http://www.apostolicvault.com/admin/...ly_tithe_1.mp3

Brother Nicodemus, perhaps you can get some pro tithes ideas from this sermon?

Enjoy!

Funny thing brother, I don't have to listen to the recording. I know what the spirit reveals to me. I work for God, he pays me what I have need of. If there is nothing in the church account or it’s full God sustains me, simple as that!

You already know I don’t believe salvation is tied to tithing. Yet, I will not Condemn a church that does tithe. Just like I wont tell someone there going to hell for believing a lie called the rapture.

Pastors that say your going to hell for not giving me money, there spirit is pretty evident. We call men like that “Ultra Cons” I don’t enjoy there spirit just as much as a loose living tongue talking liberal.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Funny thing brother, I don't have to listen to the recording. I know what the spirit reveals to me. I work for God, he pays me what I have need of. If there is nothing in the church account or it’s full God sustains me, simple as that!

You already know I don’t believe salvation is tied to tithing. Yet, I will not Condemn a church that does tithe. Just like I wont tell someone there going to hell for believing a lie called the rapture.

Pastors that say your going to hell for not giving me money, there spirit is pretty evident. We call men like that “Ultra Cons” I don’t enjoy there spirit just as much as a loose living tongue talking liberal.

Okay brother. I can tell you’re thinking about it. I realize it may take a bit.

God bless you.

But, if the Spirit tells you something that contradicts the Bible, it is not be the Spirit, but a spirit. There is a difference. Just a word of wisdom.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why, then, did he say that he had the right to the provision but abrogated it to not let anyone accuse him?

We have some sorting out to do with all the references that relate to Paul and his secular work.

I say this because we are reading people in this thread make reference to Paul's description of himself living by his own hands in other passages, so as to allegedly provide proof that ministers should not receive provision from the believers to whom they minister. Paul is being used as an example for everyone. However, 1 Cor 9 shows us that he actually claimed the right to receive provision and not support himself by the work of his own hands. So, if people are going to use Paul's references to encourage ministry to not receive income from their field of harvest, they need to study this chapter and realize Paul explicitly claimed that he had full right to provision.

If Paul is an example of not receiving income for the ones who actually should not receive income, then we have a huge problem. This means that people cannot use his words about his secular work to provide for himself, since he only said that to avoid blame of mongering for filthy lucre, when, if he did take support, he did not have such an intention whatsoever.

That's one issue that must be sorted out.

I think Paul sorted out the issue quite well. It was he who wrote itinerant apostle-evangelists have the right to forbear work, and it was he who wrote that he refused to ever do so.

The crux is, why did he forbear if he had the right?

He answers that in verse 12 of chapter 9. It was his belief that doing so would hinder the Gospel. But why would it hinder the Gospel for Paul and Barnabas to refrain from working and be financially supported by the Corinthians assembly?

Paul answers in 2 Corinthians 11 when he writes of the "super-apostles" who were taking financial advantage of the Corinthians in Paul's absence. See verse 20:

For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face...

These deceitful workers who were preaching "another Jesus" had caused the Corinthians to submit to them (bondage) and then, began to devour them. Here, devour is the same Greek word used in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of Pharisees devouring widows' houses (See: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, and Luke 20:47; also note: Luke 15:30). Obliviously then, especially in conjunction with the use of "take" (from the Greek lambano meaning to aggressively lay hold on or seize) the idea is that these angels of light were taking the Corinthians for all they were worth and were thereby hindering the Gospel, even to the point of taking the pre-eminence that belonged to Christ for themselves, and ruling over the church like Lords who had the right to abuse the saints of God.

Paul did not want to be in any way compared to these men. He did not want to be accused of being covetous for anyone's wealth.

Apart from that, he additionally preferred to set an example for the elders he had trained, appointed, or had appointed through his emissaries like Timothy or Titus, to show them how to support and take care of the impoverished by working. Acts 20:25-35 shows this quite well.

So, the right was there, all along, and the apostles in Jerusalem apparently made use of that right, just as they made use of the right to marry and lead about their wives, but that situation was unique in that the Twelve, with the occasional exception of Simon Peter, were not itinerant. They all left their homes and lives and careers behind to oversee the church which they began on Pentecost. Even after Saul's persecution, they stayed in the city and refused to abandon their calling (See Acts 8:1).

At least half of them were from Galilee, Matthew gave up his cushy job as a Jewish collector of Roman taxes, and etc. Additionally, there were thousands of converts to lead and teach and prepare for the Lord's coming in Jerusalem, especially after Saul converted and revival again took off in Jerusalem (See Acts 21:20). The Twelve needed to forebear working to care for so many souls. Paul's assemblies were never that large.

(continued...)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I think Paul sorted out the issue quite well. It was he who wrote itinerant apostle-evangelists have the right to forbear work, and it was he who wrote that he refused to ever do so.

The crux is, why did he forbear if he had the right?

He answers that in verse 12 of chapter 9. It was his belief that doing so would hinder the Gospel. But why would it hinder the Gospel for Paul and Barnabas to refrain from working and be financially supported by the Corinthians assembly?

Paul answers in 2 Corinthians 11 when he writes of the "super-apostles" who were taking financial advantage of the Corinthians in Paul's absence. See verse 20:



These deceitful workers who were preaching "another Jesus" had caused the Corinthians to submit to them (bondage) and then, began to devour them. Here, devour is the same Greek word used in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of Pharisees devouring widows' houses (See: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, and Luke 20:47; also note: Luke 15:30). Obliviously then, especially in conjunction with the use of "take" (from the Greek lambano meaning to aggressively lay hold on or seize) the idea is that these angels of light were taking the Corinthians for all they were worth and were thereby hindering the Gospel, even to the point of taking the pre-eminence that belonged to Christ for themselves, and ruling over the church like Lords who had the right to abuse the saints of God.

Paul did not want to be in any way compared to these men. He did not want to be accused of being covetous for anyone's wealth.

Apart from that, he additionally preferred to set an example for the elders he had trained, appointed, or had appointed through his emissaries like Timothy or Titus, to show them how to support and take care of the impoverished by working. Acts 20:25-35 shows this quite well.

So, the right was there, all along, and the apostles in Jerusalem apparently made use of that right, just as they made use of the right to marry and lead about their wives, but that situation was unique in that the Twelve, with the occasional exception of Simon Peter, were not itinerant. They all left their homes and lives and careers behind to oversee the church which they began on Pentecost. Even after Saul's persecution, they stayed in the city and refused to abandon their calling (See Acts 8:1).

At least half of them were from Galilee, Matthew gave up his cushy job as a Jewish collector of Roman taxes, and etc. Additionally, there were thousands of converts to lead and teach and prepare for the Lord's coming in Jerusalem, especially after Saul converted and revival again took off in Jerusalem (See Acts 21:20). The Twelve needed to forebear working to care for so many souls. Paul's assemblies were never that large.

(continued...)

[votivesoul]

(continued from above...)

The next is what you claimed here about this only applying to some who preach the gospel, and not all, who are distinct from the rest because they are itinerant. When we read through Paul's chapter here, he does not once focus in on the distinction of being itinerant in his ministry.

Not so, Mike.

First, he reminds the Corinthians that they were his work in the Lord. Was Paul from the church in Corinth or from the church in Antioch?

He obviously travelled, and having no abode, he remained in Corinth as a guest of the city, or perhaps a temporary resident, but not as a citizen. We know from Acts 18 and 19 that after Paul spent his time in Corinth, he travelled to the coasts of Ephesus. So, Paul's ministry was clearly itinerant in nature.

Secondly, if you look at the examples Paul gives, he mentions the following:

- Soldiers going off to war.

Roman soldiers and indeed all soldiers are by nature of their vocation itinerant.

- Shepherds who partake of the milk and wool and lamb of the flock.

Shepherds lived most of their lives outside, under the sky and stars. They walked and travelled and led their sheep across hill and valley to wherever the grass was greenest. So, again heavily itinerant.

- The priests and servants of the temple who ate from the sacrifices offered there.

The Levitical priesthood was divided by King David into 24 courses, who rotated and served in the temple in 8-day shifts (See 2 Chronicles 23:8) on a continuous 168-day cycle. They did not all live in Jerusalem. Rather, they travelled in from all over the country and lived and worked in the temple precinct for their scheduled time of year, then went home again.

- The one who plows and threshes

Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that almost all the hired hands who work farms around the world and in the ancient world, are and were immigrant workers who travelled as itinerant employees who helped sow and reap, shared in the produce and food the farm generates, receive their final wages, then go home.

Lastly, from the more stationary example, we can see the following:

- Planters of vineyards.

This example reflects Paul's work as the church planter who founded the Corinthians assembly. That is, like Paul, the one who digs out a vineyard and gets it going and makes it happen and generates a profit from it, is something similar to the apostle-evangelist who starts a church work.

Additionally, it should also be noted that like with farmers, often the general laborers of a vineyard are people who come in for the season, work the vines and help the owner, get paid, then leave.

So, even here there is a hint of itinerancy.

He simply generalizes the right fro those to receive support by referring to the ones who preach the gospel.

It is not Paul who generalizes, but you, and many other ministers, who don't seem to ever see any of the categorical differences Paul took great pains to lay out for us in his writings regarding the different gifts and the graces these gifts receive from the Lord, wherever and whenever Paul addresses the topic of ministry and church leadership structure.

How does the reference to not muzzling the ox who treads the corn only apply to the itinerant ministers and not any minister who is called to the ministries listed in Eph 4:11?

Because Paul used the quote from Deuteronomy 25:4 as part of the case he made for his apostolic calling. What is chapter 9 about? It's about Paul defending his calling as the Corinthian assembly's founding apostle and evangelist. It's not about Paul being their local prophet and teacher like he had been at the church in Antioch according to Acts 13:1. It's about reminding and proving that he and Barnabas and Apollos were the ones who put in the labor and time as emissaries of Christ Jesus, and so, if the Corinthians were going to take the lead from anyone, it ought to be from them, and no one else (that is to say, the 10,000 instructors in Christ; See 1 Corinthians 4:15). He was trying to bring this mess of a church back into unity and focus, and help them realize that some of the people who were causing divisions through heresies and were propping themselves up as factional leaders in the church needed to be dressed down and ignored because they were carnal and didn't know what they were talking about or how to correctly lead a church.

And so, in this way, Paul and Barnabas and Apollos were the "oxen" who tread out the corn.

Plowing and threshing is not only for itinerants.

Addressed and shown to be otherwise in many cases.

Sowing spiritual things is not only for itinerants.

We have to remember the context. Paul's use of this concept is not given to us as a generalized, universal principle, but as a specific appeal to help get the Corinthians focused on his ministry and ministry team, because they had gone too far afield into divisional rivalries. So, he transferred a certain amount of authority to both himself and Apollos, figuratively speaking, just to straighten out the issues until the dust cleared (See 1 Corinthians 4:6).

Paul said that anyone who ministers about holy things live of the temple, and does that only apply spiritually in type to the itinerants?

Addressed and shown that those who served in the temple lived of those things only insofar as they served in their courses on a rotating basis, then went home.

Paul stated in the first verse that the people were his labour in the Lord. Is this not true of all ministers called especially to give the Word.

Again, remember the context. The Corinthians weren't just Paul's work in the Lord as if Paul was just a local prophet and teacher and pastor. They were his work in the Lord as a traveling apostle evangelist. So, I don't think we should extrapolate from that context the idea that Paul is in chapter 9 referring to all laboring ministers for all time in every place. He is only referring to himself and Barnabas, and by extension, Apollos, and perhaps Titus, who also came to Corinth for a short time.

(As an aside, some think that every believer is meant to give the word and be a minister of the word in this way. That is not true. Paul distinctly stated that some are called to minister the word to people in Eph 4 when he spoke of prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers. Paul told Timothy that elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honour, especially the ones who labour in word and doctrine. Not al believers, therefore, labour in word and doctrine.)

As an aside, I am not going to address this right now.

1 Corinthians 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?

By free, he meant he was free of the need to work secular jobs to support himself.

The people who were his work in the Lord were the souls he ministered to and brought to God.

Agreed.

I see no distinction here in mentioning his apostleship in order to inform people that itinerants alone should be support but simply a reference to what his particular calling was among those others who likewise labour in the word and doctrine in the lives of believers.

Because you have been trained not to see the distinction? Why didn't Paul just write "Am I not a minister?" Or "Am I not a servant?"? If he had done that, this conversation would be going in an entirely different direction. But as it stands we cannot see the use of the word "apostle" then somehow think it's shorthand for every gift and ministry in the church.

Are not other Eph chapter 4 "gift-ministries" just as much comparable to a soldier going to war, a vineyard husbandman, a shepherd feeding the flock (verse 7), an ox treading the corn, a plowman and a thresherman (verse 0), and a sower of the seed of the word (Verse 11) as apostles are?

No. As addressed and explained. But of particular note are prophets, pastors and teachers, who are typically local, non-traveling ministers who shepherd the saints and provide the sincere milk of the Word from house to house. These are always exhorted to work and provide for themselves and even help financially support others (I realize there are exceptions with prophets, such as Agabus, Silas, and etc. But in other cases, prophets remain in one place, like the five other men listed in Acts 13:1).

I see far more weight stating that these above examples Paul used to prove there is a right to support for the ministry belongs to an gift-ministry and not just itinerants, than I see in the first verse limiting the explanation only to itinerant ministries.

Well, hopefully, you see it differently now.

In fact, I see anything but itinerancy in the example of the shepherd example in verse 11 is more for a pastor (literally a shepherd in the Greek) than an itinerant ministry that leaves the flock for other fields of ministry in a constant manner, although itinerants would qualify just as well in the overall explanation he gives.

That's because you're not thinking of what an actual shepherd of sheep in the ancient and in many cases modern, world actually does. While such things as sheep farms exist, in the ancient world, sheep roamed the country side and their shepherds led them far and wide and were frequently never home. Compare it, if you will, to an over the road truck driver, who's only home a few days a month.

As I explain to tithemeister next, tithe to me is simply a per centage some choose to give and they should understand it can be any percentage, and it is NOT bound to the many legalities that are bound to it under law. We are not under law. Period. Like you said, I suppose those who criticize tithing are thinking of those who associate all the demands of law with it that went with that number in that covenant. I do not see that at all, which is the background of my explanation.

This just shows more of a need to explain law versus grave than it is to say those who use the word tithe are hypocrites.

Just because you think of tithe that way, which is fine if you do, you have to recognize you have a very novel approach that many, if not most, do not share. Most do not divorce the word tithe from the associated legalities of the Torah. In fact, you can't even preach or teach on tithing as merely a 10 percent offering, from the Bible. You have to use a dictionary or your own words. Because every use of the word tithe is in some form or another associated with the law, even Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek and Jacob's vow.