Do we have to pay tithes?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

On the flip side, cutting funding for Social Security, TANF, and other programs that assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger in our land bares a greater resemblance to Israel's refusal to tithe in the OT, and the sin it truly was.

Malachi 3:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Matthew 25:41-46
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Will a man rob God?

The principle of taking care of poor people is sound. But we must also look at what the Bible called "poor". There really are no "poor" people in America. I do not see how scripture mandates unconstitutional, mismanaged and unsustainable programs like the one you mentioned.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by n david

I get the context. I listened to a couple minutes before and the screaming which ensued after, and he did come right out and say CLEARLY

"You are not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe."

Period.

Tell me, if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them? Is there some lesser Heaven they go to?

You're trying to claim that he didn't mean hellfire and damnation if a person just didn't pay tithe -- that he meant what would bring hellfire and damnation is stealing from God.

Semantics. You're channeling Aquila, trying to wiggle a new meaning out of what was clearly stated.

Riggen says not paying tithe is the same as stealing from God. He screamed over and over that a person was a thief for not paying tithe.

"You are not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe." Please explain what "not going to be saved" means.

But if Malachi 3:9 does mean it's robbery against God to not pay tithes and offerings then. Then 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does apply and the Bible says a thief can not inherit the kingdom of God. And that's clearly what is stated, if anybody is twisting anything you are because anyone can go listen to 121:06 to to 122:50 and it says exactly what I said. But you pulled out one thing as the same as when Jesus told the Cannanite woman "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." While Jesus did say that, that's not all that's said.

While you may argue Brother Riggen misinterpreted a scripture, therefore he's drawing a wrong conclusion scripturally. You can't say he was just saying "you don't pay your tithe you will go to hell." That would mean he made that statement, and nothing before it or after it. Anybody can listen to the video from 121:06 to 122:50 and get the full story. But even Gill said "Gill: "even this whole nation; the sin was become general, and therefore a general judgment was inflicted on them: Grotius thinks, that the people seeing the priests withhold the tithes from the Levites, they refused to pay them to them, and so the sin became universal. Kimchi observes, that in other sins charged upon the nation, the people were not all alike guilty, but in this which respected the tithes and offerings they were. "

So the scholars are saying the same thing. While Gill believed "that the moral law is a rule of life and a conversation to believers; not a rule to obtain life by; but to live according to, to guide their feet, to direct their steps, and to preserve them from going into bye and crooked paths."

But the scholars are saying the same thing as far as the interpretation of Malachi 3:9. So you can pull out a statement that was made, but that's not where the argument lies.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But if Malachi 3:9 does mean it's robbery against God to not pay tithes and offerings then. Then 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does apply and the Bible says a thief can not inherit the kingdom of God. And that's clearly what is stated, if anybody is twisting anything you are because anyone can go listen to 121:06 to to 122:50 and it says exactly what I said. But you pulled out one thing as the same as when Jesus told the Cannanite woman "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." While Jesus did say that, that's not all that's said.

While you may argue Brother Riggen misinterpreted a scripture, therefore he's drawing a wrong conclusion scripturally. You can't say he was just saying "you don't pay your tithe you will go to hell." That would mean he made that statement, and nothing before it or after it.

And you missed the deeper premise of Aquila's post.

There was once a grand old Victorian home in the town where I lived. It fell into disrepair. Vagrants kept trying to sleep in it. So, no trespassing signs were put up by the city. Thus, it became a violation of the law for vagrants to break-in and try to sleep there. Later, the home was destroyed and made into a park, thus making the no trespassing law void concerning the home, as it no longer existed. The law was a matter of public record and valid. The law lost its validity when what it was designed to protect no longer existed. If I tell someone that it is a violation of the law to trespass in that home, they are naturally going to think, "what home?" It is the same with tithing. To tell someone they are robbing God by not paying their tithes now makes no sense , because there are no more tithes to steal from. It would also be akin to charging someone with tax evasion over a tax that was ended 2000 years ago.

[n david]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But if Malachi 3:9 does mean it's robbery against God to not pay tithes and offerings then. Then 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does apply and the Bible says a thief can not inherit the kingdom of God. And that's clearly what is stated, if anybody is twisting anything you are because anyone can go listen to 121:06 to to 122:50 and it says exactly what I said. But you pulled out one thing as the same as when Jesus told the Cannanite woman "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." While Jesus did say that, that's not all that's said.

While you may argue Brother Riggen misinterpreted a scripture, therefore he's drawing a wrong conclusion scripturally. You can't say he was just saying "you don't pay your tithe you will go to hell." That would mean he made that statement, and nothing before it or after it.

Are you running for some political office?

You are really putting some spin on this.

x + y = z, right?

He said "you're not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe," we both agree, right?

You're arguing semantics. You're trying to justify that comment and say, "well he only meant if you're stealing from God." Yet Riggen establishes very clearly (and LOUDLY) that he believes a person is a thief if they don't pay their tithe.

You never answered my question: Please explain what "not going to be saved" means.

Tell me, if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them? Is there some lesser Heaven they go to?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by n david

Are you running for some political office?

You are really putting some spin on this.

x + y = z, right?

He said "you're not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe," we both agree, right?

You're arguing semantics. You're trying to justify that comment and say, "well he only meant if you're stealing from God." Yet Riggen establishes very clearly (and LOUDLY) that he believes a person is a thief if they don't pay their tithe.

You never answered my question: Please explain what "not going to be saved" means.

Tell me, if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them? Is there some lesser Heaven they go to?

Look above!! Sorry revised it.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by n david

Are you running for some political office?

You are really putting some spin on this.

x + y = z, right?

He said "you're not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe," we both agree, right?

You're arguing semantics. You're trying to justify that comment and say, "well he only meant if you're stealing from God." Yet Riggen establishes very clearly (and LOUDLY) that he believes a person is a thief if they don't pay their tithe.

You never answered my question: Please explain what "not going to be saved" means.

Tell me, if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them? Is there some lesser Heaven they go to?

But if Malachi 3:9 does mean it's robbery against God to not pay tithes and offerings then. Then 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does apply and the Bible says a thief can not inherit the kingdom of God. And that's clearly what is stated, if anybody is twisting anything you are because anyone can go listen to 121:06 to to 122:50 and it says exactly what I said. But you pulled out one thing as the same as when Jesus told the Cannanite woman "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." While Jesus did say that, that's not all that's said.

While you may argue Brother Riggen misinterpreted a scripture, therefore he's drawing a wrong conclusion scripturally. You can't say he was just saying "you don't pay your tithe you will go to hell." That would mean he made that statement, and nothing before it or after it. Anybody can listen to the video from 121:06 to 122:50 and get the full story. But even Gill said "Gill: "even this whole nation; the sin was become general, and therefore a general judgment was inflicted on them: Grotius thinks, that the people seeing the priests withhold the tithes from the Levites, they refused to pay them to them, and so the sin became universal. Kimchi observes, that in other sins charged upon the nation, the people were not all alike guilty, but in this which respected the tithes and offerings they were. "

So the scholars are saying the same thing. While Gill believed "that the moral law is a rule of life and a conversation to believers; not a rule to obtain life by; but to live according to, to guide their feet, to direct their steps, and to preserve them from going into bye and crooked paths."

But the scholars are saying the same thing as far as the interpretation of Malachi 3:9. So you can pull out a statement that was made, but that's not where the argument lies. If anything was ever robbery of God it still is! That's all anyone is saying. Without that part he wouldn't have said "you don't pay your tithes you won't get saved."

Btw there is but 2 places to go heaven or hell.

[n david]

Again. Riggen believes not paying tithes is the same as stealing from God. He screamed that over and over. So his statement "you're not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe" stands as he said it.

It is reinforced by his continuous screaming of a person being a thief if they don't pay their tithe.

For the THIRD time: if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them?

I don't want to assume you're just dodging the question, but I've asked twice before and you keep ignoring it.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by n david

Again. Riggen believes not paying tithes is the same as stealing from God. He screamed that over and over. So his statement "you're not going to be saved if you don't pay your tithe" stands as he said it.

It is reinforced by his continuous screaming of a person being a thief if they don't pay their tithe.

For the THIRD time: if a person isn't going to be saved if they don't pay tithe, what will happen to them?

I don't want to assume you're just dodging the question, but I've asked twice before and you keep ignoring it.

There is no need for my answer you have quoted him. But you are dodging the real argument. What Brother Riggen is saying about Malachi 3:9, that the scholars back up as being right. Matter of fact there is not a commentary I read that says any different!

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/malachi/3-9.htm

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The principle of taking care of poor people is sound. But we must also look at what the Bible called "poor". There really are no "poor" people in America.

While I see what you're saying, I think that perspective is too simplistic. While our standard of living is truly higher than so many in the world today, our cost of living is also truly higher also. While biblically speaking, our poor have more than the poor in ancient times, a lot of people today are one paycheck away from financial ruin and homelessness. When it comes to "orphans" (fatherless households) many desperately depend on the assistance. Are there those who take advantage of the system? Yes. But that can be addressed without eliminating the system entirely. When looking at Social Security, millions of elderly are dependent upon their Social Security. Many more are dependent upon their healthcare and prescription drug coverage. All of these things are far beyond what was experienced by the poor in biblical times, but these things are no less necessary for survival and their existence within the community as a nation.

I do not see how scripture mandates unconstitutional, mismanaged and unsustainable programs like the one you mentioned.

Scripture appears to give an example of social righteousness in relation to the poor. However, I don't see Scripture giving any "mandate" for such. Constitutionally speaking, an argument can be made that any social welfare system isn't Constitutional... on the federal level. That doesn't mean it cannot be an agenda on the state level:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, in our rather population dense and technical age another argument is often considered by many:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Some believe that it is the duty of the federal government to insure domestic Tranquility, and to promote the general welfare of the nation. Does it promote the general welfare of the nation to ensure that citizens have health insurance, aren't in deep poverty, etc.? Some say yes. Others say no. Historically, many nations have seen uprisings and revolutions as a result of not providing for the general welfare. Deep poverty leads to increased crime, sickness, the spread of disease, and could insight violence. My most liberal position is in relation to healthcare. Imagine a nation wherein over half the population doesn't have the health insurance necessary to see a doctor. These are essentially left with the only option of going to ERs. Being unable to afford care, they don't pay their bills. That loss is passed down to those who do pay their bills through higher costs in healthcare, and that increases premiums. So, the fewer people we have insured, the greater the cost of insurance. Now, imagine an epidemic with millions who wait until the last minute to rush to the ER. That's not a good thing, in fact, depending upon the scenario it can be a threat to national security and social stability.

In short, by being our brother's keeper we are stronger and more stable.

I think "welfare" should be handled at the state level. I think that healthcare should be a national issue. But, that's just me.

But all of this is just my political ramblings. And one opinion is as good as another.

The point of the original post I posted was that part of the tithe's purpose was to provide for the nation's agrarian social welfare system. Combined with gleaning rights, this cared for the nation's poor. By refusing to pay the tithe, they robbed God by failing to provide for the Levites (who owned no land or property) and the most needy classes of Israelite society. This was how they "robbed" God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The principle of taking care of poor people is sound. But we must also look at what the Bible called "poor". There really are no "poor" people in America. I do not see how scripture mandates unconstitutional, mismanaged and unsustainable programs like the one you mentioned.

I've posted this before, but I don't know if I've posted it to you. I'll share it here for your review. You can share your thoughts if you like. I'm only posting it to help you better understand my perspective, not to debate.

Holman Bible Dictionary

Justice

The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him. As love is for the New Testament, so justice is the central ethical idea of the Old Testament. The frequency of justice is sometimes missed by the reader due to a failure to realize that the wide range of the Hebrew word mishpat , particularly in passages that deal with the material and social necessities of life.

Nature of justice Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties. It is the standard for both punishment and benefits and thus can be spoken of as a plumb line. “I shall use justice as a plumb-line, and righteousness as a plummet” (Isaiah 28:17 , REB).

Often people think of justice in the Bible only in the first sense as God's wrath on evil. This aspect of justice indeed is present, such as the judgment mentioned in John 3:19 . Often more vivid words like “wrath” are used to describe punitive justice (Romans 1:18 ).

Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace. God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18 , NRSV; compare Hosea 10:12 ; Isaiah 30:18 ).

Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17 ; Psalm 146:7-9 ; Malachi 3:5 ). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2 ; Ecclesiastes 4:1 ). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40 ). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17 ). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28 ; Job 29:12-17 ). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission.

The content of justice, the benefits which are to be distributed as basic rights in the community, can be identified by observing what is at stake in the passages in which “justice,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” occur. The needs which are met include land (Ezekiel 45:6-9 ; compare Micah 2:2 ; Micah 4:4 ) and the means to produce from the land, such as draft animals and millstones (Deuteronomy 22:1-4 ; Deuteronomy 24:6 ). These productive concerns are basic to securing other essential needs and thus avoiding dependency; thus the millstone is called the “life” of the person (Deuteronomy 24:6 ). Other needs are those essential for mere physical existence and well being: food (Deuteronomy 10:18 ; Psalm 146:7 ), clothing (Deuteronomy 24:13 ), and shelter (Psalm 68:6 ; Job 8:6 ). Job 22:5-9 ,Job 22:5-9,22:23 ; Job 24:1-12 decries the injustice of depriving people of each one of these needs, which are material and economic. The equal protection of each person in civil and judicial procedures is represented in the demand for due process ( Deuteronomy 16:18-20 ). Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

Justice presupposes God's intention for people to be in community. When people had become poor and weak with respect to the rest of the community, they were to be strengthened so that they could continue to be effective members of the community—living with them and beside them (Leviticus 25:35-36 ). Thus biblical justice restores people to community. By justice those who lacked the power and resources to participate in significant aspects of the community were to be strengthened so that they could. This concern in Leviticus 25:1 is illustrated by the provision of the year of Jubilee, in which at the end of the fifty year period land is restored to those who had lost it through sale or foreclosure of debts ( Leviticus 25:28 ). Thus they regained economic power and were brought back into the economic community. Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36 ) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalm 76:9 ; Isaiah 45:8 ; Isaiah 58:11 ; Isaiah 62:1-2 ). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalm 68:5-10 ; Psalm 10:15-16 ; compare 107; Psalm 113:7-9 ). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. In some cases the two aspects of justice come together. In the act of restoration, those who were victims of justice receive benefits while their exploiters are punished (1 Samuel 2:7-10 ; compare Luke 1:51-53 ; Luke 6:20-26 ).

The source of justice As the sovereign Creator of the universe, God is just (Psalm 99:1-4 ; Genesis 18:25 ; Deuteronomy 32:4 ; Jeremiah 9:24 ), particularly as the defender of all the oppressed of the earth (Psalm 76:9 ; Psalm 103:6 ; Jeremiah 49:11 ). Justice thus is universal (Psalm 9:7-9 ) and applies to each covenant or dispensation. Jesus affirmed for His day the centrality of the Old Testament demand for justice (Matthew 23:23 ). Justice is the work of the New Testament people of God (James 1:27 ).

God's justice is not a distant external standard. It is the source of all human justice (Proverbs 29:26 ; 2Chronicles 19:6,2 Chronicles 19:9 ). Justice is grace received and grace shared (2 Corinthians 9:8-10 ).

The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalm 72:1 ; compare Romans 13:1-2 ,Romans 13:1-2,13:4 ). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalm 72:4 ; Ezekiel 34:4 ; Jeremiah 22:15-16 ). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27 ; Proverbs 31:8-9 ).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24 ; Micah 6:6-8 ; Isaiah 1:11-17 ; Matthew 5:23-24 ), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10 ), tithing (Matthew 23:23 ), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21 ), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7 ).

Justice in salvation Apart from describing God's condemnation of sin, Paul used the language and meaning of justice to speak of personal salvation. “The righteousness of God” represents God in grace bringing into the community of God through faith in Christ those who had been outside of the people of God (particularly in Romans but compare also Ephesians 2:12-13 ). See Law; Government ; Poverty ; Righteousness ; Welfare.

Stephen Charles Mott