|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set Free to Give!
A Biblical
Study on Christian Living and Giving Article history is here. Version 6.
Index
Preface
A
Few Opening Questions about Tithing
Examples of Tithing (or giving a tenth) Pre-Law Examples of the Tithe in Old Testament Law
Examples
of Tithing in the New Testament How Should Christians Be Giving?
Appendix
A - Can believers earn blessings, favor, or standing with God?
|
|
Fear. Guilt. Shame. These are words that shouldn't be in use to describe Christians, yet are often the hidden feelings of multitudes of believers today. What dark and secret sin is the source of these feelings? The answer is not what you may think... Giving. Over the years, we have met hundreds of people that are fearful that they are under God's judgment for their shameful giving practices. The guilt of not living up to the Biblical standard consumes them to the point of discouragement or drives them to a works based system of trying to please God. What critical Biblical standard have they fallen short of and who is continually reminding them of their inadequacy? A veritable army of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and even Sunday school teachers comprise the 'who', and the 'what' is mostly centered on the topic of tithing. Subtly, or belligerently, people are berated for not "doing their duty" from the pulpit, in the church bulletin, and in hosts of recommended books and booklets. Some assure the people that to have fallen short is to guarantee that they are under God's judgment, while others more mildly forewarn of loss of blessing (especially financially). Every budget shortfall of the church seems to be blamed on the disobedience of the people in not keeping the tithe, or for giving elsewhere instead of to the "church first." For the few who manage to meet or miraculously exceed the tithe, an air of superiority often accompanies this accomplishment. Even if the giver doesn't have this, church leadership regularly places them on a spiritual pedestal far above the crowd. The spiritual and material blessing of these people is guaranteed, we are often assured. Those multitudes who are struggling with getting by, trying to climb out of debt, and raise families, are castigated as lacking faith. All they have to do is "put God first" and give before meeting any other obligation and God will guarantee to meet their needs. One church trumpeted a special "Prove the Tithe Sunday" weeks in advance. How could anyone resist laying out that spiritual fleece and reaping the temporal blessings guaranteed? For hosts of believers, the idea that we have been set free in Christ is a foreign idea. Even when they can reach to apply this concept to other areas of their life, the issue of giving enslaves them on a daily basis. So is this the life most believers are destined to live or does the Bible provide an answer, a way to break this cycle of bondage? Clearly, the answer to that question is "yes!" It's our desire that in your study of this topic throughout the pages of Scriptures you will find the truth and be set free to give!
Live as
free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil;
In presenting a biblical position on giving - a topic sometimes called "Christian Stewardship" - many aspects must be examined. Differences in practices from the Old to New Testament must be considered. What is commonly meant by numerous terms also need to be defined (including tithes, offerings, and gifts). Perhaps the greatest question comes down to this, "How should Christians give?" The specifics of what is referenced by a given term can and does vary greatly amongst people, in and out of the church. Even the arguments and Bible passages used to justify or nullify practices differ immensely. Merely establishing the past or present practice of a group, church, or denomination does not become sufficient proof that a practice is Biblical - even if that practice has historical roots. Following one of the fundamental tenants of the Protestant Reformation, Scriptures alone must be our absolute and authoritative source for all Christian belief and practice. The fulfillment of this mandate requires a detailed and orderly examination of each aspect of this topic and an honest effort to set aside traditions and personal biases. Within each section we will establish questions that need to be answered and it's important that you take the time to come to a Biblical response to every one of these questions. Stepping immediately into the fray, the first topic in consideration must be the tithe. Virtually everyone who has attended a church service, or has seen one on TV, has heard about this topic. Sermons are preached on the subject, people are implored to give their tithe. The phrase, "We now wait upon you for your tithes and offerings," has become a staple in many churches before the plates are passed. The question remains; is the tithe a church tradition or a command of God? Merely asking this question is tantamount to rebellion in many churches - an assault on the finances of the church. Stoning the messenger (or questioner) is considered more desirable than even remotely considering that this venerable practice could be anything but Biblical. Yet, as believers, we need to be willing to question everything that is taught to us in Jesus' name and then hold fast to that which is from God. In an era where everyone wants easy-to-swallow sound bites, true Bible study takes time. Any topic found in numerous books of the Bible must be examined across all of them. Since the Bible never contradicts itself, passages that can be used out of context to justify a position need to be seen from the view of the whole. If it stands up to this scrutiny, it's a valid interpretation of Scripture... if it falls, then a person must go on to look for the overall unity that a Biblical position must have. The maxim "Scripture interprets Scriptures" is a cornerstone of all Biblical interpretation.
As a
starting place we will separate the phrase "tithes and
offerings" and firstly - due to its prominence - examine the
topic of tithing on its own merits. Other forms of giving will be
dealt with in subsequent sections. At the onset be clear on this, the
Bible does teach that Christians are to be a giving people. The only
question is "how?" |
|
A Few Opening Questions about Tithing...
1. What is
the tithe? What was/is its' purpose? A quick answer, which I've heard many times before, goes something like this. "Everyone is supposed to give at least 10% of all they earn, or are given, to their church. The tithe is so the church has money to operate." Great answer, but is it Biblical?
Jumping to
conclusions, especially taught ones, is easy to do. Instead, think
along the lines of the formula "A+B=C." Remember, you can't
make "C" statements - similar to the entire sample answer
above - unless you can prove "A" and "B" from the
Bible. The whole picture has to add up. The "A" and
"B" of our example includes providing biblical proof that
the tithe is for everyone, that it is 10% of everything a person
receives or earns, and that the church is to receive it. If any
aspect of this does not hold up to biblical scrutiny, the answer
("C") has to be revised. |
|
Starting Points of Reference (lots of "C" statements)... Common ideas about the tithe are taught in seminaries and expounded from many pulpits. As one that has travelled and participated in numerous churches throughout North America, representing a host of denominations, I'm perhaps intrigued most by the positions that are mutually exclusive - in other words, they contradict each other. Of course, each of these positions is held up by their adherents as being "biblical." When asked why they believe these things, a majority of people will acknowledge some level of traditional influence. Occasional 'proof texts' or verses are held out in support of what they've been taught. Yet when challenged on flaws or gaps in their biblical 'proof,' more than one have said that it doesn't matter if their method of getting there is flawed as long as it ends up teaching people to uphold the practice. Scary! This ends-justifies-the-means theology is pervasive outside the church, but should never become so inside it. Positions are really methods. The following three methods summarize most of what is being used to say that the tithe applies to the church today. Consider each position and their accompanying questions as we seek to find out if "Tithing is a biblical tradition" as one denominational pamphlet so confidently asserts in promoting this practice to its' churches. While some of the examples we will give may appear to slam church and denominational leadership, and in some cases justifiably so, I need to emphasize that the vast majority of people (leadership or not) hold to traditional views out of ignorance. It was only after I had received a number of questions about tithing and a few challenges, that I set out to examine the entire subject objectively from Scriptures. What I found was a surprise, as it will be for many readers. It's not wrong for a person to change their position on anything in the Bible after further study. It's only wrong when a person refuses to change their belief and practice to bring it into line with Scriptures. As for myself, what I now believe and teach must conform to God's Word. Method #1 in Support of the Tithe Directly or indirectly the Old Testament law is used to show the need for Tithing. Passages from the law, or that were given to people under the law, are used for examples showing that God still wants tithing. Almost on the level of the Ten Commandments, the tithe is held to have continued until today. Somewhere in all this it's assumed that the church merely picked up where the temple left off. Blessings offered to the Israelites for obedience to the law are offered as enticements to carry on the practice ("benefits of tithing" by one printed document). If the tithe is part of the law, and believed to be still in effect today, but is now administered by the church...
Method #2 in Support of the Tithe In this promotion of the tithe, the law is said to have nothing to do with the church age tithe. According to these individuals the tithe was given before the law and can be shown to exist after the law [i.e. in the church era]. If the tithe is "outside" or "before" the law and still in effect after the law, it is necessary to show...
Method #3 in Support of the Tithe This third method is not really a new one; rather a mix of method #1 and method #2 are used to support it. Since this one takes many forms a quick example will suffice. Typically it is said that the practice of the tithe was commanded before the law and subsequently confirmed by the law, which also provided additional details on its administration. The continuation of the New Testament practice is usually held to be mostly as given by the law. In addition, the same temporal blessings offered for obedience to the law are now transferred to the church (or believers) during the church age for obedience to tithing (i.e. Malachi 3:10-11). Others claim the specific temporal blessings Abraham experienced [possessions, wealth, etc.] to be still available personally for obedience to the tithe. Even many churches that would not adhere to the extreme form of this - what is often called "The health and wealth gospel" - have embraced a lesser version. One pro-tithing organization, that I'll leave nameless and use as representative of many, uses this enticing statement...
Examples offered include broke individuals tithing their last dollars instead of paying rent, to miraculously receive a 34 times return in less than week. Other stories recount new tithers getting quick promotions at work, unexpected refunds, lower mortgage payments, new jobs and more. With advertising like this, one would expect the tithe to be the biblical equivalent of a sure-thing investment. A common phrase repeated by many pro-tithing sources is the expression: "The Law of Tithing" Regardless of the quantity of the reward, they all hold that the individual or the church will be rewarded physically (or materially) for tithing. Some would claim their version to only be in pursuit of "spiritual rewards," though they claim the need of material things and finances to reap these spiritual rewards - again believing this is promised by faithful obedience to the tithe. It should be noted that some people who hold to the second method use verses from the first method (out of context) to support aspects of their practice of the tithe. As such, these individuals unwittingly fall into this third method too. See questions on Methods #1 & #2. Also, the questions...
All the questions raised so far on each method must be addressed. They can't just be summarily dismissed or glossed over. They demand a biblical answer. Fleeing to a traditional response, or citing a prominent church personality or scholar is insufficient. Citing any of the host of tithing seminars is just as unsatisfactory. It should be noted that an increasing number of these seminars are available for church members and even church leadership. These courses have become big business. Some are overtly in support of the tithe, such as...
Others promote the tithe as part of a larger package...
Even as I wrote this, I received a flyer for church leaders inviting them to The Church Financial Seminar that will show them how to get their people to tithe. Topic headings included: "How to Prove Tithing is a Good Thing" and "How to Advance Your Tithes Above and Beyond." Testimonials of how churches had applied seminar principles and benefited from exponential growth in giving through tithing are, of course, included. One was from a pastor who had "purchased their system" and was wondering how the IRS would view his church board deciding to give him all of the extra $73,000 dollars that had come in! [I think worrying what the IRS would think is the least of his concerns, but I digress.] Subtly or otherwise, the yearning for financial gain provides a continuing motivation to not re-examine the tithe. While many lament the factions within today's church - and a few will even accuse this document of encouraging these divisions - it's actually people's unwillingness to search out God's truth and live by it that fuels continuing schism. True unity is always based in truth. (See 1 Corinthians 11:18-19). One additional question needs to be addressed before continuing our study of the tithe... Did Jesus say that all of the law is still in effect during the church age?: One church document used Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17 to justify their belief that the tithe (as part of the law) was continued into the New Testament church. Consider that verse and the one that follows it.
Jesus was
teaching that He was not arbitrarily abolishing the law. Further He
was clearly saying that it could never be abolished but required
fulfillment. Once fulfilled it is done away with by completion! This
Bible passage cannot be randomly used to justify carrying on one
practice (or aspect) of Mosaic Law. If this passage could be used to
continue the tithe, why not continue sacrifices, or putting witches
to death (Exodus 22:18), celebrating all the mandated feasts (Exodus
20:15-19), etc.? It is a blatant misuse of Scriptures to say that
this passage means all practices of the law go on forever and even
worse when it's used to justify only one pet practice. By Jesus' own
words, if He fulfilled the law (in any aspect) that part of the law
could be finished. It's on this basis that the New Testament church
no longer carries on the sacrifices, ritual, festivals, and legal
ordinances of the law (read Hebrews chapter 10). |
|
Examples of Tithing (or giving a tenth) Pre-Law... With some methods claiming that the command to tithe was established before the law, our initial investigation begins with a consideration of all the examples of Scriptures in the time before the giving of the law. Abraham (formerly called Abram). [Genesis 14:11-24]
Conclusions and questions from this passage... - This was a spontaneous act of gratitude by Abraham. It cannot be considered an act of obedience since there was no command to do so by God or by Melchizedek. - Abraham did not command or desire it of anyone else in his household or company, not even of Lot who had now received everything back. - Abraham gave only of the goods he had extraordinarily acquired (in this one rescue mission), all of which he had already vowed (of his own choice) not to keep (Genesis 14:23). Abraham is never shown as having gone back home (a distance from where this event took place) and given of his own possessions that God had blessed him with. - Abraham gave to one who appears to be a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus (a Christophany). In the least, it was to a priest (and priesthood) that was directly established by God. - This giving of a tithe was a one-time event in Abraham's life. We never hear of Abraham or his son ever returning to give another ten percent, nor being command to. · If Abraham is the example for practicing the tithe outside of the law, how does his experience have anything to do with our common practice of today?
Conclusions and questions from this passage... - Jacob bargained with God (if you'll do for me, I'll do this). This actually opposes what God has commanded (Matthew 4:7), that we are not to put Him to test. This appears to be the act of a rebellious individual who had not yet learned to trust God. His example is far removed from the spontaneous gratitude and actions of Abraham. - We are not even told in Scriptures if Jacob ever did give his bargained for tithe, unless perhaps as sacrifices which were consumed by those in attendance, or poured out on the ground (Gen 31:54, 33:30?, 35:1,7?, 35:14). In fact, sacrifices are a completely different subject than tithing. · If Abraham's one time experience can be used for an example, why is Jacob's one time example not? [To be fair, some actually use Jacob's example to say that a tithe was common, or commanded in Jacob's day, but they make this argument from the silence of Scriptures.] · If Jacob was going to give a tithe, to whom was he going to give it, as there wasn't a temple and priests (or church and pastors)? How about some more examples? Here's the problem. The multitudes of other pre-law examples (that we're often assured are there) seem to be missing! Conclusions and questions from this absence of these passages... · Where are any examples from the lives of all the other righteous individuals who lived before the law in regards to giving a tithe? If this practice was a norm, before or after Abraham, where is the evidence in support of it? - In fact, besides the two isolated occurrences above, only examples of sacrifices are shown as being common from the fall to the giving of the law. Sacrifices are a completely different subject and they were clearly commanded by God prior to the law (who actually sacrificed the first animal for a covering from Adam and Eve). The law later built upon the early establishment of sacrifices, giving more details to how they were to be practiced and showing more of the symbolism that would later be fulfilled in Jesus. - Sacrifices (animals, drink, etc.) are no longer required in the New Testament church (Hebrews 9:26-28, 10:1-14) as this pre-law ordinance and subsequent portion of the law was fulfilled in Jesus. For reference, the many types of Old Testament offerings can be divided into the following classifications. Offerings can be classified as (1) propitiatory (expiatory atonement): sin offering, guilt offering; (2) dedicatory (consecratory): burnt offering, grain offering, drink offering; (3) communal (fellowship): peace offering, wave offering, thanksgiving offering, vow, freewill offering. Only the 'freewill' and 'vow' offerings of the communal category were not mandatory. As Jesus was our atonement, the one who consecrates us for His use, and who is our peace bringing us into fellowship with God, he fulfilled all need of the offerings of the law in His perfect sacrifice (offering). |
|
Examples of the Tithe in Old Testament Law... Moving on to the giving of the law through Moses, there is much we can learn about the then mandated tithe. Like many other decrees of the law, the tithe had detailed specifics regarding its' administration...
Conclusions from this passage... - The tithe was commanded of the nation of Israel - The tithe was of yearly increase, not of everything one owned or grew. Specifically it was only of things grown, both in the ground and of livestock. Nowhere in the law is any person commanded to give a tithe (in any form) of lands, clothing, and other merchandise, except for grown or cultivated items. For those who confuse passages on the first fruits offering with tithing, scriptures specifically says that the tithe of the livestock was by random (which could make the animal good or bad, young or old), and no substitution was allowed!
- The tithe was now a yearly (once a year) ordinance - specifically of the increase over the previous year's yield. Some have questioned that this was a yearly practice based on the fact that crops matured at different times of the year. While it's quite clear in the Bible that the separating of a tenth of the flock would be annual, little is told us on when the setting aside of the tithe of the increase in grains would have taken place. As people would have been capable of storing their harvest, it is quite probable that it was still a once a year event, with a goal of taking it to the temple during one of the mandated feasts. At most a person may divided it (the tenth) into thirds to take a portion for each of the three required festivals at the temple. For a majority of Israel (those away from Jerusalem), the only times of the year they would go to the temple would be at these special gatherings. Since the majority of the tithe was to be eaten by the giver, it's likely that dividing it up would provide provisions for each of the festivals. This division would not have increased the tithe, it would have merely determined when it was to be used, since it was still of the increase and not of everything a person had at that time.
Rabbinical writers especially point out that the last mentioned festival, the Feast of Ingathering, which took place following the completion of the ingathering of all produce of the ground, was the big "feast" in terms of what was consumed. As such, this could be best equated to our modern celebration of Thanksgiving. Perhaps this meant that more of the tithe was taken to the temple at this time to be consumed before the Lord. - The tithe guaranteed a vacation for the people, a time of rest from working. - The giver administered the tithe! The giver (not a priest or pastor) was responsible for using it or distributing it. - By the law, the tithe was to be consumed by the giver in fellowship (especially with his family and extended household.) and only at the place God designated. (See Deuteronomy 12:4-7, 17-19). This mandatory act of fellowship included the following lesser aspects... · It was to be shared with those in full time ministry (Levites), people who by designation had no inheritance because they were devoted to service of the Lord. [This part was mandatory only every third year! See also Deuteronomy 26:12-13]. Note that it was not only the tithe that was eaten by the giver. Even with most of the sacrifices, the giver and family normally ate them, with only a portion of the whole being given to help the priests (Levites). [See 1 Samuel 1:4, 2:13-14]. In regards to the tithe, the priests in turn ate it (which was "grain and juice from the winepress") with their family, etc., except for ten percent of it, which was given to the high priest. Though not explicitly told so, it would follow that the high priest and his family (servants, etc) would consume this final percentage [Numbers 18: 21, 24-32]. While some scholars hold that this last referenced passage in Numbers contradicts, or shows an alternate practice to the passage in Deuteronomy, using standard principles of biblical interpretation, it requires us to look for the higher unity while using scriptures to interpret scripture. Obviously the passage in Deuteronomy prevents the "all the tithes" mentioned in Numbers from referencing anything but the portion for the Levites given every three years.
· It was to be shared with strangers (aliens) · It was to be shared with needy (fatherless & widows) - Israel was promised a blessing for following the commanded practice of the tithe. Blessing came with obedience to the law; punishment came with disobedience [which was the same for every aspect of the law]. Every command of God comes with this same pro and con. All sin or rebellion against God has consequences. The entire issue of the tithe was not to be a burden to the people; rather it was a personal show of obedience. The giver was responsible to God for what they had done (as administrator of the tithe), and were commanded to speak to God and tell Him that they had been obedient in keeping the command (see Deuteronomy 26:13). Even the priests, in doing the same with their portion of the tithe, had identical responsibility. The result would be that all the people would "learn to revere the LORD your God always. (Deuteronomy 14:23)"
Conclusions from this passage... - Three separate things are in view throughout this account: freewill offerings, tithes, and mandated offerings (such as firstfruits). [See 2 Chronicles 31:5, 12] - When Hezekiah ordered the people to give what was due to the priests [31:4], it included all three types of giving. The tithe that was due was the long forgotten third year tithe that was used to help the Levites. It's not surprising that it would be mentioned during this start up of the temple. Getting provisions in storage to provide for the Levites (who were again doing their temple service) was important. Only ten percent of the tithe given by the people would have actually gone in the storeroom [See Numbers 18:26-28] as the portion that would sustain the active priests doing service at the temple. We will consider more regarding this in the next scripture passage to be examined regarding Nehemiah. - Notice that when the people did what they were supposed to be doing, there was more than enough food for the Levites [See 2 Chronicles 31:10]. We shouldn't be surprised that God's system worked then even as any method He has for us will work now. - Excluding freewill gifts, both the mandated firstfruits offering [greater] and the tithe [lesser] were all about food. They were to make it possible for the Levites to eat, not provide them a bank account. In fact it appears that consecrated items could not be sold to those who were not Levites - they belonged only to those for whom they were designated.
Conclusions from this passage... - This passage changed nothing from the law, as it merely restated it. The mandated firstfruits offering and giving of firstborn, etc., had nothing to do with the tithe and was a completely separate ordinance. To apply the standard of the firstfruits to the tithe (as some churches do) in saying that the tithe has to be first and the best is not shown by this Old Testament passage. It is not proper Biblical interpretation to arbitrarily combine separate ordinances of the law (or aspects of such practices), much less carry them into the church. - It was necessary for the proper implementation of the law to be set forth again, because common practice during the divided kingdom period allowed many corrupt practices to become commonplace. In fact, it appears that during this time Israel (the northern kingdom), with its' false places of worship, stopped going anywhere to eat the tithe and only went to one of the two new spots to bring the Levitical tithe every third year (see Amos 4:4). With these changes the customs of the people were almost entirely in opposition to God's commanded practice. It's no wonder that God condemns them repeatedly for turning away from Him! Likewise, if the tithe is still for the church it then becomes very important that we know (and can prove from Scriptures) where the tithe is now supposed to go. - While every three years the tithe was shared with the Levites [see Deuteronomy 14:28-29], the Levites were only required to take 10 percent of that amount to the temple storehouse [see Nehemiah 10:38], where it was distributed to the priests for their usage (consumption). This small percentage (10% of loosely 1/3 of people's original 10% ... less than ½ of 1 percent!) was all that was going to the temple storehouse from the tithe. All the additional goods that went to the temple storehouse, from the people as a whole (verse 39 above), were the mandated offerings of the firstfruits, etc. This additional passage from Nehemiah shows how the firstfruits and tithes are clearly spoken of as being separate and that only the portion for the priests (all of the firstfruits and their once every three year portion of the tithe) went into the storeroom...
The book of Nehemiah also confirms that the tithe was still only in regards to things grown and cultivated; livestock, grain, wine and oil (Nehemiah 13:12). The entirety of the concept surrounding the eaten tithe and the once every three-year special tithe must be understood to pertain to what God is saying in the next passage we will examine...
|
|
Conclusions from this passage... - This is God's indictment on Israel for not obeying His law. In this passage God restates the obligation the priests and people had under the law. Two separate transgressions are in view in this passage - tithes and offerings. The tithe is the same one we've been looking at as established by the law, while the offerings that are spoken of here are the mandated offerings of the law which included the firstfruits. - Verse 10 is a specific rebuke of the priests who alone were to bring a share of the tithe into the storeroom. (See the earlier section on Nehemiah again. Way back to the time of Hezekiah we are told what the purpose of the temple storerooms was. While it included space for the Levitical share of the tithe, it also included storage for other dedicated gifts and offerings, both mandated and freewill. See 2 Chronicles 31:4, 11-12.) In fact, read all of Malachi. This book is mostly a message for the priests. The priests had stopped following the law and the people where following their bad example. In verse nine, God includes the people as being guilty on grounds that they were withholding the mandated offerings. Check out the many passages throughout the Old Testament (try Isaiah) where God holds the nation at fault for the corruption of the priesthood and leadership. Many of the people were likely not giving their every third year portion of the tithe any longer either. Earlier, shortly after Nehemiah re-instituted temple worship, the people of his day had forgotten about the Levites. This prompted the Levites to forsake what they were supposed to be doing and lookout only for themselves (Nehemiah 13:10-13). The downward spiral alluded to in Malachi would likely have fed on itself. With the priests not bringing what they were obligated to bring into the storehouse and with less being given by the people (especially in mandated offerings), the shortages probably prompted the priests to look out for themselves again, forsaking God's work. - This passage also restates the blessing God promised Israel for following the law. Again, this message was first and foremost to the priests in an effort to have them see what harm they were causing the nation through their disobedience. The priests, with their position of authority, were to be more accountable as they were to be examples and teachers of the people. It needs to be noted that the passage in Malachi is one of the most preached on, in our modern churches, in regards to tithing. It is used in spite of the fact that it is clearly a passage for those under the legal obligation of the law and (as with the whole book of Malachi) is primarily an indictment on the leadership of Israel (especially the priests, who where the only ones who took tithes into the storehouse). The blessings offered for their obedience are merely a restating of the extraordinary blessing God promised them (as a nation) if they would obey His law (Deuteronomy 7:12-15; 11:13-15, Exodus 23:24-26). So what's wrong with using Malachi to encourage tithing in the church? The quick answer is "everything!" Using this passage for this purpose is a misuse of Scriptures. It is completely wrong to guilt people into giving by claiming they are robbing God. For example, an on-line document by Rev. Rick L. Patterson, Th.D., president of Miami Christian University, says...
To make
the accusation that someone is today robbing God, it becomes
necessary to prove from the Bible that there's still a set
obligation, and amount, as Israel had under the law. If no amount is
set, as with freewill offerings under the Old Testament law (see
Leviticus 7:16), not giving cannot be construed as robbing God -
unless the gift was vowed (or promised) by the choice of the giver
and then it would become a broken promise (see especially the example
of Ananias & Sapphira, Acts 5:1-11) |
|
Some more questions and thoughts... · Before any of these passages could be used for the church, it still must be shown that they apply beyond the physical nation of Israel who was specifically under Mosaic Law. · If this passage somehow teaches a blessing to the church for tithing (which there is no evidence of), why shouldn't the church claim all the other temporal (material) blessings promised Israel for their obedience? Before leaving the Old Testament we need to consider another idea that has been put forth concerning the purpose of tithing in Old Testament times... The tax versus gift hypothesis. This view is taught by Dr. John MacArthur, Jr., a writer and theologian who has written many very helpful things. I was not made aware of his materials on the subject of tithing until after a limited release of the first version of this document. What I found was that his conclusions are similar to my own in regards to whether or not the tithe applies to the church, only that we differ in the 'why?' and his interpretation of some Old Testament tithe law. MacArthur teaches that there were really three different tithes, one of which was every third year. He is not the first to espouse this viewpoint, with some citing extra-biblical sources who referred to two tithes or three tithes (and perhaps a seven year cycle of tithing). One reference work cites the problem in this manner...
As we have already shown, using Scriptures alone, there is a higher unity that removes any apparent discrepancies. The "Jewish tradition" cited in support of the double tithe is primarily from works written (or compiled) centuries after the destruction of the temple. There appears to be no direct, earlier, evidence to support the idea, other than Josephus, and he contradicts these traditions by having a third tithe. It is possible that by late Old Testament times, or even still more likely in the final years of the temple, a multiple tithe system may have been enforced. The Pharisees had a way of legalizing things that were never intended by Scriptures. If there were multiple tithes at the time of Jesus I would expect the self-righteous New Testament Pharisee in Luke 18 to have pointed out his diligence to "tithes." Beyond the biblical certainties, these various ideas supporting multiple tithes allow for much speculation as to what they may have been used for. In MacArthur's articles he holds to all of the tithes being used to support the government of Israel. In his view, with Israel being a theocracy, the Levites were the administrators of the governmental system. Making it multiple tithes, instead of one tithe with multiple purposes, enables the percentage to grow as well. (This sounds like the thinking of many modern governments, but I digress again.)
Problems are immediately evident with this quotation, when viewed in light of all the Old Testament passages we've already examined. For example, we have already established... |
|
- The tither ate his tithe with his family, etc. This cannot be construed as funding a national festival much less the government itself. If this was a tax it doesn't sound like any governmental tax anywhere else in history. How many governments would allow you to share your tax with the poor (on your honor), or consume most of it with your family and friends?! - The tithe had nothing to do with money. It was crops and livestock. The Old Testament tithe was not imposed on acquired belongings, lands, or monetary gain, only on natural increase which included crops, livestock and fruit of the vine. (Consider that there would be nothing to tithe regarding crops every seventh year, which was a Sabbath year during which no crops were to be grown. If the government was dependant on this it would certainly make for automatic cutbacks!). "All that money" (as MacArthur calls it) could hardly be used to operate a nation, when there was no money involved. The "smaller taxes" MacArthur references are equally questionable. Consider the first passage he references in support of this idea.
How this becomes a tax is beyond my imagination. In this passage God was instructing people to be merciful and allow there to be food for the poor and alien to glean from the fields. Oh that our taxes of today would show such compassion!
Once again, the second "smaller tax" passage is shown to have nothing to do with money and, like the first, nowhere is it paid to any government (Levites or king). When God established his seventh year rest for the land, it was to provide rest to the people and to show compassion on the poor (and perhaps even the animals). MacArthur's statements imply that the tithe was the largest means of income for the Levites. In fact, as we've already seen, it's the other mandated offerings that provided the bulk of support for the Levites. If you multiply the number of tithes to get twenty percent or more (as MacArthur states), there is still the issue of proving that the Levites were the government. I consider this premise highly unlikely on numerous grounds of Scriptures. Remember that the tithe was instituted when Israel was a true Theocracy (ruled by God alone), long before Israel asked for and got a king. If the Levites were supposed to be receiving at least 10% already (or 20%, or 23.3% as MacArthur attests), why would God have had Samuel warn them that the new government (monarchy) would demand a 10% (tithe) share of everything for that government? Also, if the Levites were agents of the government, why would Solomon have separate store cities and administrators (who were not Levites) collecting all his provisions? |
I believe that there was a secular tithe imposed after the monarchy was set up, but it was not generally referred to as the "tithe" (wording that almost always was used in reference to the religious 10%). The monarchy imposed 10% was simply a tax. These taxes were collected and administered by government officials, completely separate from the priesthood. For example, from the time of Solomon...
A person could perhaps try and justify saying that the Levites were the government before the monarchy, though it's even unlikely during the time of the judges and, for that matter, during the time of Moses as he established tribal leaders for governing (see Exodus 18:13-26). During the greater portion of Israel's history the idea becomes completely unprovable, including during the unified monarchy and divided kingdom that followed. Through these periods the secular governing authority was so strengthened that it is shown continually as being in control of all aspects of governing. Even during the Roman period (late Old Testament and early New Testament) all taxation authority was with the Roman government (as with the earlier Persian government at the time of Nehemiah. See Nehemiah 5:4). Before leaving MacArthur's teaching on this subject we need to consider one last statement...
Check the verses he used for his examples, they pertain to constructing and furnishing the tabernacle or temple -- something that was always freewill, as we have already examined. If the Levites were the government, would not maintaining or constructing the building where their service was centered be part of running the government? How can other mandated offerings, such as the first fruits, be considered voluntary, or are they to be considered taxes too? The bottom line is that it is stretching credulity to try and claim a Levitical government and call some or all of the offerings and tithes, "taxes." Before leaving the topic of taxes, it should be noted that there was a defined temple tax (one of the few things regarding the temple that pertained to money) ...
This temple tax was first imposed by Moses (2 Chronicles 46:6, Exodus 30:11-16) as part of the law. It was a defined amount of money (that had not changed for hundreds of years) payable by all the male citizens of Israel 20 years and older. Collected once a year in the month of Adar (our March) this tax was specifically for the maintenance and care of the temple (and tabernacle to begin with). It was from this tax that the money changers had figured out a way to gouge the temple tax-payers -- profiting off of something that was supposed to provide for God's house. This tax alone was the prescribed form of financial income for the temple. Based on the number of people in Israel it most certainly would have raised substantial amounts of money. When it was first imposed by Moses it was also called "atonement money" representative of the need to redeem their lives. With the fulfillment of our atonement by Jesus Christ (and the destruction of the temple form of worship), this requirement was done away with. If the church could be shown to have taken over where the temple left off, it would be even more logical to carry a head-tax into the church rather than some form of the tithe. At least it was dealing with money. For the record, some churches throughout history have even imposed a form of "pew taxes" or a "church rate" to provide funding for their building. (I wonder if they exempted women and children? But, again, I digress.) When people can pull random things from the Old Testament into the new, like the tithe, this shouldn't surprise us. Pointing towards the day when the temple of God would be in men rather than in an edifice -- truly when all would be known as sons of God -- Jesus' words that "the sons are exempt," showed that a new and better way was coming.
While this
discussion on taxes has little bearing on concepts of the tithe that
are popularly carried into the church, I believe it's important that
we always seek to find a solid defendable position based on all the
Scripture passages. While it would be convenient to be able to
contrast the Old Testament tithe to modern taxes, it actually
detracts from showing how far removed the Old Testament tithe is from
God's plan for giving in the New Testament era (but this is getting
ahead of our progressive study). |
|
Examples of Tithing in New Testament... For something that occupies so much time in many pulpits, you would expect the New Testament to have a lot to say on the subject of Tithing. It is not enough to say that Jesus spent a lot of time talking about money... He did! But check out the context of what He was talking about. Unless it has to do with a tithe (the religiously mandated ten percent), which wasn't even money in temple times (unless converted by the giver for easier traveling), it's not talking about the same thing. In fact, the New Testament only talks about the tithe THREE times...
Conclusions from this passage... - This passage was speaking to those who are still under the law (the scribes, Pharisees, etc), who were still mandated to uphold the law. Notice that the tithe was still in terms of goods (increase), specifically cultivated items (crops). The ceremonial law and all it entailed were not done away with until after Jesus died and rose again. - Jesus was telling them that they had missed the point of the law and had descended into a hollow legalistic ritual rather than seeing the intent of the law. - Merely showing that Jesus wanted them to uphold the law - while it was still in effect - does not place a requirement on the church to follow. Jesus offered sacrifices at the temple as well and fulfilled all the required elements of the law, but this does not mean that all those practices of the law should be carried into the church also. Again, it is improper Biblical interpretation to arbitrarily take one part and leave others, without clear Biblical instruction or precedence. - It's interesting to note that Jesus looked on the tithe as a lesser part of the law, calling justice, mercy, and faithfulness more important. It's a stark contrast to how many churches hold the tithe as an extremely important (and perhaps most important) part of their professed worship.
Conclusion from this passage... - This passage is the words of a self-righteous person, still under the law, who looked to the deed as gaining favor from God. Like the other Pharisees, he was missing the point. Part of the problem of the mandated giving and ritual of the law was that people often looked only to the act, rather than considering the motivation of their act. Even today, many people point to the tithe as fulfilling their "obligation," rather than considering their motivation and coming to a complete understanding of Christian giving.
Conclusions and questions from this passage... - This whole passage was to show the deficiency of the Levitical priesthood (law) and the need of a spiritual priesthood forever in Jesus (grace). Nowhere does it say that Abraham was following a command to give a tithe (even as the Old Testament passage does not). If (and this is a big 'if') this passage could be shown to teach the need of a tithe, it would be in the example of Abraham (refer back to the beginning of this article), though it implies that the tithe (of faith) was already paid (in a spiritual sense) for subsequent generations. The focus of the passage was not on tithing but on the greatness of Jesus' eternal priesthood, even as Melchizedek (as a pre-incarnate appearance or at least a type of Jesus) was far greater than the earthly priests of the law. Nowhere does this passage draw a continuation of the law's tithe into the church. In fact, it could be said that it points out gifts (freewill offerings) given to God are greater than any law-bound tithe. - This passage clearly states that the former regulation of the law has been set aside through Jesus...
Examples of Tithing for the Church...
... Absolutely None ...
As the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (1996, Baker Books) put it... "Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent..." This becomes a very strange statement for something that consumes volumes of pulpit time, but not so when all of Scriptures is considered. Teacher and author, John MacArthur, Jr., arrived at the same conclusion...
If, at any time in New Testament Biblical history, there was a possibility that the tithe could have been carried into the church, it was during the struggle between Jewish church and the infant Gentile church. Acts chapter 15 begins with some of the Jewish believers telling the Gentiles that they had to follow an aspect of the Law of Moses to be saved. When Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to try and work this out with the leaders of the Hebrew church, those creating the problem on the Jewish side went all out, demanding that the entire law of Moses must be observed.
Here was a prime opportunity! The ancient Jewish church (assuming that they might act selfishly and apart from God's will) could have picked any or all of the law and claim it to be necessary for the Gentile believers. Yet after seeking God's will and consulting with the Elder's and Apostles (Acts 15:6-19), they determined that saddling Gentile believers with unnecessary parts of the Law of Moses would hinder them from coming to the Lord. In the end the Jewish church only asked that the following aspects of the law be upheld by the Gentile believers...
Obviously, if God wanted the tithe to be a part of the church, He could have had it stated here. Not honoring idols makes sense, as a reflection of one of the Ten Commandments (and God's holiness), in regards to not having any graven images (Exodus 20:3-4). So also does abstaining from sexual immorality in regards to adultery (Exodus 20:14). Perhaps the strangest request here is the legal prohibition of eating things strangled and still with their blood. It appears that God wanted them to carry this one aspect as something that would help keep the peace between the Jewish and Gentile church. To break this one element of the ceremonial law was considered to be highly offensive to the Jews. While it was not really a concern to Gentiles (see 1 Corinthian 10:25-26), God was asking the Gentiles to abstain from something that would be willfully and blatantly offensive to their Jewish brothers. Either way, the tithe was not even in view during this event. (Perhaps we need to ask how the church arrived at the point where the command to tithe has been substituted for the actual admonition to not eat things with blood or strangled. This latter command, carried from Jweish dietary law, was all but forgotten in the years that followed, especially after the destruction of the temple and the later failed Bar Kochba rebellion in 132 A.D. From that point onward the church became overwhelmingly Gentile in practice, losing most contact with Judaism and any perceived reason for this last restriction on Christian liberty.) Whether Peter, as the Apostle to the Jews, or Paul, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, or even the beloved Apostle John (Galatians 2:8), each of these writers of the New Testament had plenty of opportunity to talk about tithing, if it had been important or relevant to the Christian Church. Over and over they worked to correct aberrant practices and establish sound doctrine in the new church and yet they were completely silent regarding the tithe. Today's pastors and theologians are anything but silent on the tithe. Many, otherwise sound, teachers find it necessary to artificially prop up something that just isn't there. Risking the wrath of many who enjoy John Piper's writings (which I often do as well), I will use his message on this subject as an example. The following points are from his sermon given September 10, 1995 as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church...
As a refresher, and to practice applying the principles we've already learned, we will quickly examine the Bible passages and arguments that Piper uses in defense of his seven points. #1. Piper states that because God gave no inheritance to the Levites, He assigned them the tithe (Numbers 18:20-21). This is true, but remember that the portion of the tithe shared with the Levites was only a small portion of the whole, as most of it was consumed by the giver in fellowship and shared with the poor as well as the Levites. Giving 10% of our money to the church in no way honors an Old Testament means of God providing for his ministers -- this is an entirely new concept of the tithe. In fact, the new concept of the tithe removes it's administration (and any possible joy of sharing) from the giver and makes it a church function and now one centered around money rather than meals. Provision for the Levites came through a combination of many things, including a portion of mandatory offerings. Why wouldn't arbitrarily reinstating the firstfruits offering be closer to honoring an Old Testament means of providing for ministers and be just as logical? Once again, the tithe had nothing to do with money and did not provide for the Levites "expenses." Piper also appealed to Matthew 23:23 to say that Jesus promoted the tithe, concluding "So Jesus endorses tithing." Re-read the section on that passage that we covered earlier -- it is a contextual misuse of the Matthew 23:23 passage to apply it to the church. Superficially, perhaps his best argument in this section is 1 Corinthians 9:13-14...
Piper claims that since Paul appealed to the Old Testament practice of the temple storeroom provisions being used to support the priests and Levites that it proves that a tithe should be used to support ministers in the church. His words are; "it seems likely that tithing would have been the early Christian guideline, if not mandate." Yet it's dangerous to read too much into Paul's "In the same way." Taken to an extreme, could not everything concerning the Levites be carried forward? To do so would result in the minister's share of the tithe only being the smaller portion that actually was put in the storeroom (re-read earlier sections), and then only of the increase of crops, livestock, and fruit of the vine, and no minister should be allowed to own lands as an inheritance (even as Levites had no inheritance in the land). In fact, this is not what Paul was saying when he said, "In the same way." In the context of the entire passage, that these two verses were pulled from, Paul was establishing that ministers of the gospel should able to receive physical income and provision while carrying out their ministry. This is the principle whereby believers should provide for those in Christian service. Paul even points out that he did not always use this right (by his own choice, exercising his freedom). Nowhere in this passage does it establish a method for this provision, much less reestablish Old Testament legal requirements to accomplish this. As you will see later in this article, reestablishing legal requirements, or inventing a new legal requirement, would go against the Biblical principles that Paul worked to establish for the church. Piper's final statement in this point is as follows.
The evidence we have already examined in Scriptures does not support this statement, both regarding his claim that the tithe sustained the Old Testament ministry and "probably" supported the New Testament church as well. The next section, which deals with church history, will also help to show that the "probably" is completely improbable. #2. While no scripture is used to defend this point, a couple of his opinions should be evaluated. [Though there is a scripture verse in this point, it is not being used to support the claim being made.] Piper's statements...
|
|
What Bible passage, for the New Testament church, says that giving a tenth of our income to the church proves that we believe all our money is God's? [Though he doesn't directly say that the giving must be to the church, he implies it throughout all points.] Since we're back talking about writing a check, based on our gross income, how does this have anything to do with even the Old Testament tithe? Remember that the tithe was of the increase (net) of crops, livestock, etc. -- money wasn't even in view. [I think I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this!] #3. How giving away ten percent of our income, versus using all of it for God's glory, becomes an antidote to covetousness is beyond me. But Piper says, "Tithing is one of God’s great antidotes to covetousness." While he used many versus that validly say that covetousness is wrong, there are no passages that even begin to prove his point and associate the two. When a person buys into a mandated percentage it really does nothing towards controlling covetousness, which is an issue of the heart (see Colossians 2:20-23 below). A person can covet just as well with the remaining 90% if they believe that somehow the remainder any more belongs to them than the first 10% did.
|
|
#4. While Piper provided a great example of a person who understood Christian Stewardship as a lifestyle, namely John Wesley, his attempt to use it as proof of the need to "go beyond the tithe" is invalid. Again, teaching that there is a dichotomy between what is God's and what is ours does nothing towards controlling "our natural impulse toward luxury." Coming to a right understanding of Christian Stewardship (as we will soon examine) is the only sure course. Piper uses 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 as a proof text for the next three points. We will not spend much time examining it here as we do so in the section entitled "How Should Christians Be Giving?" #5. The heart of Piper's argument in this point is the statement "Excess money is for good deeds." Again, I'll emphasize that we need to skip the dichotomy. The truth of scriptures is that all we have and all we are is for good deeds! Consider...
Rather that Piper's statement that we need to "go to the tithe and beyond," Scripture teaches that Christians are beyond the tithe. #6. Claiming that Paul, in 2 Corinthians 9:6-8, was restating Malachi 3:10, Piper then spends much of this point trying to apply that Old Testament passage to the church. As we have seen, this passage had nothing to do with the church (re-read the earlier section on Malachi). Yet by tying Luke 6:38 to Malachi, Piper echoes the popular claim that a person should test God in tithing. [It's dangerous business putting God to the test unless he has specifically commanded it of us. See Psalms 78:41, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12] Where we end up in Piper's teaching is with a mild form of the prosperity gospel, because this "is God's way of providing you, the tither, sufficient money for your needs." Simply put this is telling people that they have to earn God's blessing and daily provision, claiming that if you tithe God is sure to give more money in return. Piper does emphasize that this won't make you rich... remember this is the mild form of the prosperity gospel. Again, what makes the mild form logically more consistent than the extreme forms? Before continuing, we need to look at the whole passage in Luke (beginning with the verse before the one verse Piper used)...
This whole passage is on love. Jesus was illustrating that a believer will act out of love. When we show mercy and forgiveness in everything (including with material goods) God gives us more and more ability to act in love! That's what I want "pressed down, shaken together and running over", the ability to love more and more in everything I do. This is far better than desiring any increase in my earthly bank account! #7. Pressing "towards the tithe and beyond" will never prove and strengthen our faith in God's promises, as Piper claims. Being enslaved to a newly created system of giving 10% of all your money to the church does nothing towards proving one's faith. Following God's word is proof of one's faith (John 14:15). Though Piper uses Hebrews 13:5 in this point, a verse which warns us to be "free from the love of money", giving away 10% does nothing towards freeing a person from the love of money. Studying, believing, and putting into practice the principles of Christian Stewardship that God has given to the church -- which deals with all that I am |
