Is The Tithe For Today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don't think anyone is arguing that the church equals God. What is being debated is whether there is an objective standard for supporting the local gospel ministry.

As an aside, what was the objective standard for giving in the OT?

Regrettably the church is put in the place of God simply by the terms in which the issue is discussed.

During the carnal ordinances of the OT one tenth was given to the Levites (not the church). I take it that the other tithes are not the subject of discussion.

Were the Levites considered to be God?

-----Added 4/1/2009 at 07:42:07 EST-----

One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10% 5% 50% He does not give a tithe and then offerings. He gives offerings. He may choose to allot a specific amount to his church and then give extra elsewhere or to special offerings.

I guess I'll say it again,

Whereas, before, God gave an objective expression of what He desires to be the minimum that we return to Him. Now He has become silent and leaves it up to our own subjective opinion. So if a person who makes $100,000 per year gives only $20 per week to the support of the church, since there is no standard, the church's leadership really can't say anything.

It seems a little odd to me that God has gone to great lengths to express to us how to order the church (when to worship, how to worship, who can lead the church, and the structure of the church itself) but He is silent on how to support the church.
 
Why would anyone assume it would hold over? It is not part of the 10 commands or moral law. Confessionaly we would say the general equity of the practice could be followed but not necessarily the letter

good point
 
HOWEVER... Generally speaking...

I'm convinced that many of the folks who argue against the tithe as being obligatory do so because they want to justify their stinginess.

Very subjective accusation. I once held to the tithe. Its part and parcel with pentecostalism. I reject it because 1) It is not New Testament teaching 2) It is abused these days 3) Far from leaning to stinginess, the opposite is true. 10% is nothing to those who have a reasonable income. But it is a burden for those with very little income. On the contrary, for those with a reasonably good income 10% tithe teaching can promote surface level giving and self satisfaction 'I have given my tithe' I have obeyed what God requires'.
 
3) 10% is nothing to those who have a reasonable income. But it is a burden for those with very little income.

??? How do you figure? The beauty of the tithe is that it places an equal burden on all. I make a reasonable income and it is not 'nothing' to give 10% for gospel ministry.
 
Is it possible that the general equity of 10% = 10%?

No that is not possible.

The GE = General Equity. One may decide in his own heart and before God that in following GE he chooses to give 10%...

?????? So is it possible or not? You contradict yourself. But, I understand. It is late.

No contradiction.
I mean it would be wrong to say it is possible the the GE = 10%

Then one may think the GE is 10% or a specific % number
The GE itself can't be a specific #.
The GE is just a principle.

We want to say more clearly; in following the GE of the tithe
I am free to choose to give 10% just as rightly as saying I think I will give 15%
Now are we thinking on the same line?

I do think ministers need to give some strong training on this and giving to their people if there is no rule; to warn them against stinginess and to be generous trusting the Lord, give sacrificially. The widow's 2 mites, is as much a part of the GE principle in giving too.

I reeeeally love the rare book Riches Increased By Giving! by gouge.

So did Owen and I think manton. They said it was done so well there was no need for them to write on this important subject and everyone should read the book.

Pass the out in your congregations and you should have little trouble with giving.

It is better than all the Get Rich Quick schemes they read and fall into and he is clear to make sure we do not see it a as a mechanism like the modern prosperity gospel
 
We want to say more clearly; in following the GE of the tithe
I am free to choose to give 10% just as rightly as saying I think I will give 15%
Now are we thinking on the same line?

Probably.

Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?
 
Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?

I think the GE would imply we are to give something, 1st fruits, and as a token acknowledging it is all God's, and in trusting Him to supply all our need.

So as a matter of conscience I would think a minister should suggest these and that giving noting would not fit.

So if all you have is mites seems like Christ was happy with that.

If I didn't have that I would go beg till I got it.

But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.

Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?
 
Could the GE lead someone to give nothing to the gospel ministry?

I think the GE would imply we are to give something, 1st fruits, and as a token acknowledging it is all God's, and in trusting Him to supply all our need.

Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?

But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.

Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?

This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.

Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
 
Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?

But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.

Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?

This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.

Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

Oh I was thinking of that as getting cash back from the church or a ram back. But I see it could apply to delaying paying as well. Whew 20%

That makes a 10% tithe look cheap. I bet we could get more out of people if we taught them they had to pay 20% for not paying up front or as they go. If they hold back its + 20%

As for 100%, well the GE to me would say it should be a significant PART not all. But how would I feed myself or family? So that would be irresponsible so , no other scripture would give me GE lessons on being responsible for my family so that would balance the GE of the tithe.
Compare script with scrip

Was that a trick question to see if I am getting sleepy tonight yet?
 
Could the GE lead someone to give 100% to the gospel ministry?

But I have one for you. Can I hold back my offering and then give a bunch later.

Even if I give god any interest I earned. If I have a special emergency expense and have none this week or month can I pay double next month?

This was allowable in the MC, but you had to pay 20% interest.

Lev 29:17 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

Oh I was thinking of that as getting cash back from the church or a ram back. But I see it could apply to delaying paying as well. Whew 20%

That makes a 10% tithe look cheap. I bet we could get more out of people if we taught them they had to pay 20% for not paying up front or as they go. If they hold back its + 20%

As for 100%, well the GE to me would say it should be a significant PART not all. But how would I feed myself or family? So that would be irresponsible so , no other scripture would give me GE lessons on being responsible for my family so that would balance the GE of the tithe.
Compare script with scrip

Was that a trick question to see if I am getting sleepy tonight yet?

It does appear that you and I are the only ones up tonight. But this is it for me for today.

My point is that the GE of the tithe cannot be simply 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' as many have said. We have demonstrated that 0% and 100% are not an option. The next question would be, "What about 1%?" No, that is still not enough. "What about 2%?" Still not enough. At some point we realize those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' have a standard. Where did this standard come from? And does it make them any more at liberty than the thither? Both are sticking to a standard. The difference is the standard for the tither is objective while theirs vague and subjective. That is why I say there is more liberty in the objective standard of the tithe than in the subjective standard of those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their heart.'

It is really a moot point on this board, I think, because I am pretty confident that most here give more than 10% when it is all said and done.

Have a good night.
 
My point is that the GE of the tithe cannot be simply 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' as many have said. We have demonstrated that 0% and 100% are not an option. The next question would be, "What about 1%?" No, that is still not enough. "What about 2%?" Still not enough. At some point we realize those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on your heart' have a standard. Where did this standard come from? And does it make them any more at liberty than the thither? Both are sticking to a standard. The difference is the standard for the tither is objective while theirs vague and subjective. That is why I say there is more liberty in the objective standard of the tithe than in the subjective standard of those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their heart.'

I agree it can not be whatever the Lord lays on your heart.

But I do say because that would be irresponsible is no need to take the Pharisaical easy way out by making a rule or using an OT one. (Not calling you a pharisee, saying making rules not prescribed as I think this is not would be.)

What we need is to teach people how to develop a conscience before the Lord. That they must study and interact with others, mark them which walk uprightly among you, wisdom in counsel w/ many, etc. Apply to means of grace and then through prayer and meditation with God and allowing the Spirit to convict them they come to a decision.

So no man made rules, no lackadaisical whim the spirit led me to etc. But through serious applying the means they are free to come to a conclusion.

If this is binding ... ??
Its not but it is work, it is a walk of faith not rules. And we do not let guilt affect us but we continue to check it out from time to time and it changes as we prosper. When I am making $10 / hour maybe I give 10% but if I am making $400 and hour to only give 10% would be wrong possibly so we do not say 10% minimum. We say as god prospers you.

Sorry this is hard on someone and they have to think, study and interact.
Might breed life into people instead of just saying you don't need to check with the Spirit or pray, just follow the rule.

The rule would be fundamentalism leading to spiritual weakness. Teach them the hard way, the way of vital living faith and walk in the Spirit with God so they must continue to seek Him, not check off a rule.

And of course for the lazy and immature you can tell them if in doubt, until you can deal with this, probably consider 10% a minimum unless you absolutely can't live on it even at a meager lifestyle, and consider the GE of the 20% late fee. Pray God prospers you.

Thanks for the sharpening!!
 
I agree it can not be whatever the Lord lays on your heart.

But I do say because that would be irresponsible is no need to take the Pharisaical easy way out by making a rule or using an OT one.

My point is that both systems have 'rules'. It is possible, according to both systems, to give too much or too little. I object to the charge that tithers are burdening themselves with a rule. Both systems have rules but the objective rule of tithing is so much simpler and clearer.

Thanks for the sharpening as well.
 
If I didn’t give at least ten percent of my increase to God’s work, I’d question whether I was giving sacrificially, cheerfully, and proportionately; and set a goal toward which to strive.

Why should one feel this way if there is no objective standard? And is the "goal toward which to strive" an objective goal, or is it just some goal I have invented?

We are to give proportionally; so a percentage is a predetermined minimal portion to be given to benevolent causes.

We are to give intentionally, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give...” (2 Cor. 9:7). Thus, the portion should be predetermined by the giver as a goal beforehand. How much to give should not be an afterthought, depending upon what is left over.

As we are to give sacrificially, the portion given should take some bite out of our resources. However, this would be more for someone earning a great deal, and less for an individual trying to sustain himself, and perhaps going into debt doing so. One deeply in debt but giving ten percent, is perhaps robbing his creditors to give to God. While debt itself should be avoided, I’d encourage such a person to give a smaller percentage while they work through a plan to get out of debt, and periodically strive to increase the percentage.

As we are to give cheerfully, ten percent should not be the point where those who can afford more stop giving. If I find joy in giving ten percent, I’ll look forward to the opportunity to give more.

Ten percent is a mere useful mile post to strive for if one can’t afford to give that much yet. It is a starting point for those not yet giving sacrificially. Even then, we need to ask, Ten percent of what- Net income? Gross Income? What about dividends and interest? Disposable income after necessities? Adjusted gross income? Increase in net worth? Wages plus retirement plus benefits? These can’t be defined with precision biblically; but principles may be applied.
 
How many different tithes are there in scripture?

To my knowledge there are three or four.

The Levitical tithe was for the Levites
The Poor tithe was for the poor
The festival tithe was to be spent on yourself
Then there were firstfuits (not sure if they are classified as a separate tithe)
 
If tithing is still obligatory, we should be paying three tithes on the agricultural increase (seed, vines, trees, herds, and flocks) of the promised land, the first of these going to Levites. Do you live in Judea? Are your elders Jewish Christian Levites?

??? The Levites tithed and it wasn't on agricultural increase. The tribe of Gad tithed and they did not live in Judea. The tithe may have been administered by the Levites but it was not reserved for 'Jewish Christian Levites', but for the poor and the fatherless as well. I don't think this is a good argument at all.

The Levite tithed on the tithe he received to the Aaronic priests. This was a pass on of the agricultural increase given to him.

Judea was used as an example. As you don’t live in Judea, or any of the tribal inheritance, there is no biblical requirement to tithe on the increase of your land. The tribal region of Gad was part of their promised inheritance from God.

You find no biblical requirement to give on non agricultural increase, except for special regulations in regard to the plunder of war, which is what we find in Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek.

Orthodox Jews, very meticulous in their application of the Mosaic law, find no requirement for tithing on wages or income from trade.

If you wanted to apply the principle of proportional giving found in the ceremonial law, it might look something like this.

First tithe, ten percent on the increase of the land and herds, given to the Levites. This is increase. If a family killed a couple sheep during the year to sustain themselves, it would not be counted in the increase for the year. So, this is ten percent of adjusted gross income (after necessities), or ten percent of increase in net worth. And, if ministers are the New Testament Levites, all of this tithe should go to them, not to the building fund or deaconal fund.

Second tithe, only on the increase of the soil and not herds, to be used to visit and feast at the three required festivals in Jerusalem. So, this was for a family religious conference and feast, including the purchase of desired wine and beer. But, if we are not required to gather in Jerusalem, where are we to have this family conference and feast? Ok, set aside at least five percent for a family vacation and attendance at a good reformed conference, but only if wine and beer are allowed.

Third tithe, only every third year and on the increase of the soil, not the herds, was for the relief of the poor. This would be more like one and two-thirds percent of our income given to the deaconal fund or other relief of the destitute.

Besides this, there are required and voluntary gifts. First fruits and first born livestock belong to God. Buildings (tabernacle and temple) were constructed from free will offerings, not tithes. If a church thinks a tithe is required, and uses part of that tithe for building construction, maintenance, heating, air conditioning, pews and carpeting, it is in violation of the principle behind the first tithe. Such should be used for paying ministers, evangelists, missionaries, and others who minister the word.

If we are going to make application of the Mosaic tithe and other laws regarding giving, let’s consider what was required in the original context.

And, let’s not forget God owns all our substance and we are answerable to him for the use of everything for sustaining our family, saving, investing, and giving.
 
4) Those who try to keep the tithe today cannot because in the OT it was much more than 10% it also involved argicultural offerings (in othet words it does not transfer well culturally.
I think this is a problematic statement. You could dismiss a lot by saying things don't transfer well culturally just because of a dissonance here and there.

Tom you ducking the question. The Old Testament tithe was way more complex than the giving of ten percent in the plate. How would you transfer eating some of you tithe before the Lord: Deu.12:17-19:

17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. 18 Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. 19 Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.

Deut 14:22-26

22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. 27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

I never got an answer to my question. I think it's a good question.
 
Ten percent is a mere useful mile post to strive for if one can’t afford to give that much yet. It is a starting point for those not yet giving sacrificially. Even then, we need to ask, Ten percent of what- Net income? Gross Income? What about dividends and interest? Disposable income after necessities? Adjusted gross income? Increase in net worth? Wages plus retirement plus benefits? These can’t be defined with precision biblically; but principles may be applied.

This is one of the great things about tithing. You are forced to ask these important questions. A man who tithes knows exactly what his increase is.
 
Point here is though these rules look wise they don't change the flesh. You are just following a rule. What God wants is a change of heart and desire and to have the mind of Christ so we can decide how much e should give. e never get to do it right. We never know for sure if we have gone too much tot the left or right, we walk by faith being convicted by the Spirit unless we cross a clear line. Like not giving at all would clearly be wrong. Hear the word
Col 2:20-23

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV

Gal 3:1-4

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Gal 3:19

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;
NKJV

Gal 4:9-11
how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.
NKJV

Gal 5:18
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
NKJV

The law was tutor until the the Spirit was working in then in a new way. The LAw written on their hearts etc.

Much of Gal is speaking to justification but it is the same with sanctification.
We don't need the laws to control us either.
We have the faith and Spirit of the risen Lord who has delivered us from the bondage of sin.

If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit. Not saying anyone has lied. I am sure you don't tell them all they have to o is tithe. But if one did. But still saying tithe is the minimum could allow some to be misled and think this.

Tell them to seek God and grow their conscience and convictions.

They may be supposed to give more and you tell then 10% is the rule and they are fine.

Tell them in the OT He required 10% what do you think now you should give?

Would it be any less?

Even to say its is a 10% minimum and you should see if you should do more. It is still wrong. It is going back under the tutor.

All you can do is ask

do you think your dress is modest?

do you think your hair is long enough?
Do you think that TV program is following the principles of think on things good pure lovely, think on these
Do you think any TV is?
Do you think your make up is in accord with, Let your adorning not be outward etc.?
Are you pursuing wealth in a good way or worldly?

We just can't legislate all of this. They are a matter of conscience.
So we drive them to Christ and the Spirit.

Why would you not do it in these areas but you will do it with giving??

** What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience?
How do we know which is which?

Like all the questions coming up on PB, how far can I drive on the Lords day, etc. the Pharisees made simple rules so they did not have to teach their people to seek God on these things. We don't. We say it is a matter of conscience. Go to God, the word, fellowship with others and mark then which walk uprightly among you etc.
 
Last edited:
How many different tithes are there in scripture?

To my knowledge there are three or four.

The Levitical tithe was for the Levites
The Poor tithe was for the poor
The festival tithe was to be spent on yourself
Then there were firstfuits (not sure if they are classified as a separate tithe)

First fruits was not a tithe.

If you want to apply the principle, give away the first paycheck of a new job, or the first increase after a raise, or pay a ransom of five silver shekles for a firstborn, if a son born vaginally (about $32.50 in today’s silver prices). But, can a minister receive the redemption of the firstborn? A rabbi cannot. It must be received by a Kohen, a direct male descendant of Aaron. Know any ministers named Cohen?

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 01:57:59 EST-----

If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit.

.....

** What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience?

My point too. We can’t preach anything authoritatively which is not explicitly found in scripture or by good and necessary consequences deduced from there.

Of course, we can preach on the passages regarding Old Testament tithing and New Testament giving and the principles to be derived therefrom. But, a mechanical and direct application of ten percent to net or gross wages can not be found there.
 
This is one of the great things about tithing. You are forced to ask these important questions. A man who tithes knows exactly what his increase is.

What ??? Of course he doesn't if he believes he is to follow OT tithing laws.,

How did you determine you only had to follow one of them and not the every 3 year one?

Your just making up a rule to simplify your life.

As a business man with complex businesses that my accountant and lawyer can't even figure out my taxes right, how would I go through Glenn's list of tithes and apply that to my businesses?

The tithe was set up for a simple agrarian society of 4000 years ago, not today's economy.

Just give up. The tithe was complex not just 10% of all income weekly or annually.

It is a matter of conscience.
The OT tithes are and example to us of God's general equity at best and may have no relevance at all whatsoever other than
Abraham gave, God told the Jews to Give, we are to give according to the NT exhortations as God prospers us and when we see needs.

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:06:46 EST-----

KMK
"My point is that both systems have 'rules'. It is possible, according to both systems, to give too much or too little. I object to the charge that tithers are burdening themselves with a rule. Both systems have rules but the objective rule of tithing is so much simpler and clearer."
No both systems don't have rules

We have a holy Spirit and a conscience and examples OT and current and we have the word and we are to use our liberty from the OT laws to seek to be conformed to Christ.
to have our desires changed.

We can ask questions and challenge people's convictions but we can't legislate until it crosses a clear line.

How much can you talk to another man's wife? How much or what kind of touch is allowed?
Here is one of mine maybe you can give me rule for this to help me not feel confused. How much food can you eat at a Buffet, to be a good steward of the money you paid and yet not be a glutton?
Is gluttony a one time act like eating a lot at a feast or is it only if done on a regular basis; manifesting an attitude of self indulgence?



Not to follow a rule

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:17:41 EST-----

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:40:38 EST-----

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 02:11:13 EST-----

First fruits was not a tithe.

If you want to apply the principle, give away the first paycheck of a new job, or the first increase after a raise, or pay a ransom of five silver shekles for a firstborn, if a son born vaginally (about $32.50 in today’s silver prices). But, can a minister receive the redemption of the firstborn? A rabbi cannot. It must be received by a Kohen, a direct male descendant of Aaron. Know any ministers named Cohen?

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 01:57:59 EST-----

If you tell someone they have done their duty by tithing, you lie, you have replaced the Spirit.

.....

** What warrant have you to make a rule for some areas of the Christian life and let others be matters of conscience?

My point too. We can’t preach anything authoritatively which is not explicitly found in scripture or by good and necessary consequences deduced from there.

Of course, we can preach on the passages regarding Old Testament tithing and New Testament giving and the principles to be derived therefrom. But, a mechanical and direct application of ten percent to net or gross wages can not be found there.


Glenn did you used to be a Rabbi or a Theonomist??

Awesome work, I am checking on housing prices in Boise. Tempting?

Also for clarity, I was not saying anyone has lied. I am sure you don't say you only have to give 10% and that is it. But if one did. :oops:
But even saying 10% is the minimum and then seek to give more messes people up and may give the idea 10% is doing their duty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair Warning... This is a long one.

Some say that we should not teach the tithe because the NT does not explicitly teach it. But as with other things in Scripture, we cannot simply dismiss the tithe because we do not find explicit teachings in the NT. As much as with the Sabbath, the tithe predates the law of Moses, and even Abel brought the first fruits. It would seem, then, that tithing is what is known as a creation ordinance. It is a perpetual and lasting ordinance. It has not been abrogated by any teaching of the NT.

Now, I really do believe what I wrote above. But today's version of the tithe is not biblical. Today's version has been stretched too far in some cases and not far enough in others. There are indeed modern day principals we may glean from the tithe and it would seem that the modern version applies some principals but not others. For instance, there seemed to be different tithes for two different categories of agriculture. There was a principal for tithing of your flock, and a principal of tithing of your seed, or fruit bearing plants. If we are not all farmers, how do we apply these principals to the money we make? Let's look at them in turn, and see how we may apply this to our income.

Take the practice of tithing the increase of your flock. Unless I am mistaken, they were to count every 10th sheep under the staff (Lev 27:32). From year to year, you count your flock. Some of these same sheep you've counted before. You have Methuselah, a sheep who has outlived all of her family. You've already counted her a dozen times. She's never come under the staff. But how do we apply this to monetary gain? If a person makes $50K a year, he normally tithes $5K and calls it quits. But what about that money he has left over from what he did not spend? If we were literally following every dollar under the staff, we would count what we had left over from last year in the calculation of what we are to tithe, right? But how many of us do that? Let me give a scenario.

You're only going to count the money that comes under the staff. Let's say you are 20 now and plan to retire at age 65. Your company says they'll pay you $50K a year and increase it by $2K every year. If you made $50K last year and $52K this year, by modern tithing standards, you owe $10,200, $5K for last year, and $5.2K for this year. But if you apply the sheep principal and you have any money from last year's income, those dollars, too, come under the staff. So, say you saved $5K. How much tithe do you owe this year? $5.7K. If we extrapolate this out, each year you are going to do more than 10%. At year 20, you have an income of $88K, and you have $95K in the bank. Your combined "increase" would be $183K. You would then owe $18.3K, or about 21%. At year 45, your retirement year, you make $138K, have $220K in the bank for a total of $358K. You would owe $35.8K, or about 26%. And that is just talking about what you saved, not what you get in interest or what your retirement would pay out.

Let's say your company matched every dollar and put in a dollar for your retirement. Your retirement fund is $460K. With the interest over the years gaining a mere 3%, you would have about $965K in the bank. Combining this with your last year's income, the final year you worked, you would owe about $100K, about 72% of your income. Upon retiring you live on social security and earn about $3000 a month, or $36K a year. If you lived to 80 and only spent what social security provides, you'd be paying $150K in tithe the year of your 80th birthday. That's almost $114K more than your annual social security income.

This is what tithing wealth means.

Abraham tithed, from what we can see in Scripture, once (Gen 14:20). It was an extravagant gift, but we can only assume he did it once in his life. But what did he tithe? Spoils of war, or his wealth. Jacob is another who tithed of his increase, and it seems he did so more than once (Gen 28:22). But what did he tithe? It would appear that he tithed his wealth, not his income. If we go back to the above scenario with Methuselah the sheep, she was part of wealth, not income. If you count all your sheep, and these are the same sheep you had last year, then you are tithing of your wealth, not your income.

This is clearly not the principal in the modern day version of the tithe. The modern day version more closely resembles the tithing of grain (Deut 14:22). After all, the tithing of sheep and tithing of grain are mixing two different commodities. Grain, because they didn't have really have a good place to store it, was more of a short term commodity. Livestock lives from year to year. So, in the accounting of the increase of grain, they wouldn't necessarily have any left over from last year. And what are you going to do with it even if you did? Are you going to put all your grain together and give 10%? Not likely. That is why the modern day version of the tithe is based on grain, not on livestock. Additionally, the passage above talks about turning your grain to money, which may be another reason to apply this principal to monetary income.

But from which of these two principals should we derive our monetary tithe? Should we tithe on our monetary wealth as if it were like livestock? Or, do we tithe on our monetary wealth as if it were like grain? Do we count all of our wealth in the tithe? Are we counting equity in our home (not that anyone has any now)? Are we counting our other assets of value? Jacob did (Gen 28:22). In the scenario above with you working 40 years, can you see the difference between tithing just your income and tithing your wealth? It's clear to see. Tithing your income in your 65th year is only $13.8K, tithing your wealth on just your retirement savings is about $100K. Huge difference.

What we are left with is a perception that the modern day tithe is like the tithing of grain. And for most, I would believe, this is where it ends. They tithe their income for the year and no more.

Now, where do we get the modern day concept of bringing our "grain" week by week, or perhaps every time we get a paycheck? This principal comes from Paul who says that we should set aside something every week... until he comes to collect (1 Cor 16:2). While it may not be a bad thing to do, modern day tithe doctrine says that this is what tithing is. They have applied the tithe of the OT with a partial principal (tithing of grain), and applied the instructions of Paul so that the "grain" is brought in week by week.

I have to admit, I don't understand and have not yet come to grips on how right or wrong this is. It is a modern day practice to be sure, but is it applied correctly, I am not so sure. It seems like a mixture of principals. And I haven't even fully developed all of the giving language from the OT! There is much more there that would shed light on what the principal really should be.

Further, lets not forget that when it came to building the tabernacle in the wilderness, they did not tithe!!! They gave much, much more than that. Moses had to turn people away, they were bringing so much. Where did they get that idea?

Well, there is the key. It wasn't necessarily their idea. These same people who complained about their being no water and no food, gave extravagant gifts to the work of the Lord? The Holy Spirit obviously had a great deal to do with it. We should be able to admit that the Spirit has alot to do with our giving. Not only does it matter the spirit we have and with which we give (cheerfulness), but the Spirit factors greatly in how we are moved to give. I am not saying at all that we give as the Spirit moves us. But we can't very well pin all of this on to some synergistic work we do, because we don't believe in synergy. At least, we don't believe in synergy as it comes to most things touching redemption. But how can tithing not be an issue of progressive sanctification? How can tithing not be God working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure? We Reformed (hopefully most of us) do not believe in bootstrap theology. But how many people who hold to the modern day tithe doctrine, believe that tithing is a matter of the will, as if this is the one thing we can do in God's kingdom that does not require faith, grace, and mercy from God to do it? God says He desires mercy not sacrifice. Yet, how many in the church are compelled to do something they have not the faith to do? Is God pleased with any amount of money not given in faith? (That also begs the question if God is genuinely pleased by our offerings at all.)

I know that it seems I am arguing for both sides. I probably am because I don't believe the modern day version of the tithe has it all correct. The Bible teaches the tithe. It is not just a ceremonial law that was abrogated. That's the good news. The bad news is that I don't believe any church who teaches what I have described as the modern day version is teaching the matter correctly. Matthew Wanser stated that the gospel version of the tithe is 100%. I think that is closer to what we should be teaching. But where we must be careful is how, and to whom we should apply this teaching.

The two principals that should be separated in the modern day version of the tithe are making it required by everyone, regardless of their situation, and requiring it week by week, as if, if they don't pay it, they get behind.

I think people should tithe their wealth. But what is wealth? Wealth is that which someone possesses without any other having claim to it. If you have a $30K car and you owe $30K on it, that is not wealth. If you live in a $1.5M home, and you owe $1.8M on it (a real life scenario), that is not wealth. You may have the income to have both of these things, but you don't have wealth until both of these have no other claims on them. Think back to the sheep scenario. Do you think they would have counted the sheep they didn't own, but belonged to another? They would not have. Therefore, you should only be compelled to tithe on what no other has a claim to. And you should, by all means, not be constrained to stop at 10% on this wealth. The widow gave all she had. But what did she give? She did not give something that wasn't hers. She had no debts that we can speculate. She gave what she had to live on. I won't start talking about her now because I would go too far afoot from the current subject. Suffice it to say that she is used by modern day tithe doctrine proponents far beyond what her act really teaches.

Now who should do this? There are so many struggling today because of the current financial climate. Let's say we have a family with 4 small children. The guy is struggling to make ends meet. He is doing all he can to keep the house and the car and pay his debts. And now, along comes the modern day tithe doctrine and tells him he should be giving 10% of his already meager living to the church because that is what God requires. He has to choose between paying a payment late, or putting off repairs to his house, or any number of different things. Is that right? Should he pay what he owes to his creditors and not give to God? Or, should he sacrifice and barely make it so that he can say he has done what he is commanded to do. Is that what God requires of him? Because his conscience is pricked, he gives what he can, but it is no where near 10%. Perhaps his elders talk with him about it. Perhaps the people that know what he gives believe he is not giving enough. What is the solution for him?

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not expect the tithe from anyone who has nothing. But the assumption is, the children of Israel would always have possessions, so no one was to come before the Lord empty handed (Ex 23:15, 34:20; Deut 16:16). If there was a poor widow or an orphan who had nothing, did God expect them to bring a tithe? Absolutely not. Likewise, if a slave did not have anything, had no possessions, was at his master's table and under his roof, what was he to bring? He had nothing, he could bring nothing.

Many in our day, including myself, are slaves to debt. We do not own most of the possessions we have. If we pay for anything by credit, it is not ours, but belongs to another. This is not to say that a person who is fully indebted has nothing to give. Everyone has something, because we do earn a wage. But that doesn't mean that we are to tithe based on what we make. That money is already spoken for because of the choices we've made (and the country in which we live who exacts a fair amount of taxes). Should we tithe on our gross or on our net? If we even have to ask that question, we've missed the biblical principals of tithing in the OT. Remember, they would never have counted a sheep that they didn't own. Part of our income, if not a good portion of it, is not ours, but belongs to someone else.

We all have different scenarios and we all struggle. But do I believe the man with 4 children should count out his income to the penny and tithe (according to the modern day version)? No, I believe the guiding principal should be that he gives as God enables him, knowing that he will give more as his situation improves. I don't see how anybody could call him stingy if he gives what he believes he can afford. Again, going back to wealth, he doesn't have any. He owes the bank on his house and his cars. But this will not always be the case. His children will grow up, move out of the house, and he will pay it off, and have wealth. Should he give 10% then, I believe he should. But the concept of giving 10% of his gross income now, I believe, is not required by God. And if a person doesn't have wealth, then they should be encouraged to give what they can, because that is biblical. In any case, they should be charged to examine their own conscience and give as the Lord leads them and to increase their giving as their situation improves. We should have enough faith that the church's needs will be provided for because God is working in them both to will and to do.

If a person does have wealth, they should be encouraged to give more, perhaps even more than 10%. To whom much is given, much is required. Why was the foolish rich man, foolish? Because he didn't even think about his soul or giving back to God who had given him everything. Why did the rich young ruler go away sad? Because he didn't have in his heart a willingness to give to God what he required. I think there is a principal about general equity in the modern day version of the tithe, but the Bible doesn't teach this. There is a sentiment that everyone should give their fair share, which according to the modern day version, everyone should give 10% of their gross income. The Lord, however, also says that since He has given much to the wealthy, He requires much from them. And, remember the widow. It doesn't say she gave a tithe, it says she gave all. Clearly this doesn't show general equity because she gave more than everyone even though it was only a very small amount. But even in the case of the wealthy, they should only do as the Lord leads them. He gives it to them to give to others, not to hoarde it. This is the principal of the rich young ruler. God isn't telling all the wealthy to go and sell all they have and give it to the poor, but He is telling all of them to be generous. And in most cases, they should be compelled to give at least 10%.

I guarantee that there isn't a wealthy person out there who truly tithes of their wealth. They will tithe their income gladly. But if you counted their net worth, they would only be giving a fraction. There are exceptions and extremely generous rich people. But by and large, they will rarely give more than 10% of their net worth. How many times have you heard of anyone giving the church 10% of their estate when they die. That is a rare occurance.

So, at the very minimum, we should encourage the tithe for those who have wealth enough to do it. For those who do not have wealth, we should encourage them to give what they can, when they can.

So, what of weekly giving? The principal of weekly giving was laid in order to collect a special offering for the Jerusalem church. That doesn't really apply to us. Remember that OT tithing was on a yearly, or in some cases, every three years, so that doesn't really jive with the modern day teaching. Though there is no prohibition not to give weekly, it should be as the person desires to give. That doesn't help when the church incurs monthly expenses, but again, God is faithful even if we believe His people aren't. A person should be free to tithe when they are compelled to do so. If it is weekly, then let them do it weekly. If it is monthly, yearly, every 5 years, etc., they should have the freedom.

That begs the question, should we pass the plate (or bag) every Lord's Day? I believe we should because it is a part of worship to collect for the needs. They brought their tithes during times of solemn assembly. We should bring ours every time we have a solemn assembly. And we do so, weekly, so we should collect, weekly.

I have thought about this subject over several years. I hope that my words do not offend. But whatever the concept of the tithe is today, it hasn't always been thus. We need to take a step back and try to see why that is. We shouldn't dogmatically hold to this modern day version as if it is something that does not bear further scrutiny. We should be able to talk about this in a reasonable manner and not be offended by it. Yet how much trouble has this subject caused the church? It should never be divisive, nor should it be ignored. We should talk of it openly and be willing to hear opposing sides.

I should also add, if you are currently following what I have described as the modern day version of the tithe, by all means, continue to do so unless you are convinced you should not. Let your conscience be your guide. But also realize that the Spirit has compelled you to do so up to now. So, why stop? As long as your conscience is clean, don't change anything. If you are following the modern day version and you believe 10% is all God requires of you, and you really could give more, I would challenge you to give more. If you are wealthy and sitting on a very comfortable sum, give as the Lord has given you. If you have nothing and struggle to give any meager amount, remember the widow and don't let anyone look down on you for what you give.

But with this, as with all other things, we need charity, mercy, grace, and patience. It will not do to fleece the sheep, and it will not do to let them go as they may. We have to have a constant steady hand to allow for latitude and freedom of conscience. Jesus taught us to give so that our left hand does not know what our right hand is doing. This clearly means that giving is our own personal domain. But we should encourage each to give as the Lord leads, gently instructing and guiding, but never placing the demand of the law or sacrifice above the act of giving itself, which is all of mercy and grace.

May we endeavor to seek these things with unity and the bond of peace.

In Christ,

KC
 
Some say that we should not teach the tithe because the NT does not explicitly teach it. But as with other things in Scripture, we cannot simply dismiss the tithe because we do not find explicit teachings in the NT. As much as with the Sabbath, the tithe predates the law of Moses, and even Abel brought the first fruits. It would seem, then, that tithing is what is known as a creation ordinance. It is a perpetual and lasting ordinance. It has not been abrogated by any teaching of the NT.

KC

There was no 10% requirement that we know of for Abel

We do not simply dismiss it because it is not in the NT, we dismiss it because we are told to dismiss it in the NT. It was part of the laws for Israel that were dismissed. Which other laws not specifically mentioned in the NT are still binding on us? Feast days, City of Refuge, No cutting the hair on the sides of the head?

I don't see 10% as a creation ordinance. You have proven my point.

Giving may be a creation ordinance but not specifically 10%

I didn't bother to read past these obvious oversights, sorry.

None of the money is ours. All we have belongs to the Lord, we are just given stewardship over it to distribute it as we feel God would want us to and is wise.

I would add that to me it is wise that we show a faithful minister of the word who has had as much school as a lawyer or Dr that we value our spiritual body as much as our physical body.

So it would be wise to give him a salary commensurate with his importance and value to us. Let your giving to him be as you value your souls.

*Thenomist pastors not included, they should only get what is left after other church expenses of the 10% people give. :):)
 
There was no 10% requirement that we know of for Abel

We do not simply dismiss it because it is not in the NT, we dismiss it because we are told to dismiss it in the NT. It was part of the laws for Israel that were dismissed. Which other laws not specifically mentioned in the NT are still binding on us? Feast days, City of Refuge, No cutting the hair on the sides of the head?

I don't see 10% as a creation ordinance. You have proven my point.

Abraham tithed, who was 400 years before the giving of the law. Hebrews 7 tells us that Levi, who receives tithes, also paid tithes through Abraham. That looks like it is outside the ceremonial law to me.

In Christ,

KC
 
Take the practice of tithing the increase of your flock. Unless I am mistaken, they were to count every 10th sheep under the staff (Lev 27:32). From year to year, you count your flock. Some of these same sheep you've counted before.

As scripture says “increase” that obviously means surviving newborn, excluding first born males, which already have been given to the priests. It was obvious which sheep, goats, cows and bulls are less than a year old at the annual roundup or branding time.

If this was directly applicable to our wealth today (which I maintain it is not), one would do an annual audit to determine his net worth, including the value of durable goods, home equity, all real estate value, investments, retirement accounts, bank accounts, art and gun collection, gold and silver one owns, and piggy bank savings. Whatever increase in net worth one finds from one year to the next, one tenth of the increase goes to the support of the ministers of the word, about five percent (as the second tithe was on increase of the soil and not on livestock) to pay for a holy vacation, food, wine and beer, and one and two-thirds to the deaconal fund. Then, we can talk about required and fee will offerings.

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 03:57:47 EST-----

Abraham tithed, who was 400 years before the giving of the law. Hebrews 7 tells us that Levi, who receives tithes, also paid tithes through Abraham. That looks like it is outside the ceremonial law to me.

Abraham’s practice in Gen. 14 is not a model for tithing. Abraham here paid a tithe on the spoils of war, not on his increase of land or flocks (Heb. 7:4). Under Mosaic law, there were different rules for offerings from the spoils of war (Num. 31:25-30) amounting to 2.2 percent being given to the priests and Levites.

In middle eastern practice, a tithe of the spoils of war was often given to the king. Here, Abraham is giving a free will offering of the spoils to the king of Salem and priest of God Most High.

This is not the Levitical tithe of the Mosaic law; nor a tithe on the increase of the land.
 
I am going to bow out of this thread lest anyone begin to think that I am preoccupied with this subject. The main thrust of my participation has been an attempt to tear down the caricature that tithers are pharisees (which has been implied).

Through this discussion I have shown that both tithers as well as those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' have a standard for giving. It is possible in both systems to give too little and to give too much. That is what I mean when I say there are rules involved for both systems. Both systems require one to look at his increase and ask, "How much is enough?" and "How much is too much?" The tither goes to the OT example for guidance and those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' go to their own hearts for guidance.

The argument that the tither is a Pharisee because he follows a rule does not fly because everyone follows a rule of some kind. The tither follows an objective rule and others follows a subjective rule.

Is it possible that the tither is giving 10% because that is the amount that 'the Lord laid on his heart'? Does that make him a Pharisee?

Is it possible that those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' sometimes give exactly 10%? Does that make them a Pharisee?

No doubt there are some who apply the law of the Tithe in a pharisaical manner. But just because one tithes does not mean he is a Pharisee.

----------

As to Glenn's statement that the tithe applied only to agricultural increase and that those involved in other trades were not required to tithe, I cannot believe that is correct. Blacksmiths, clothiers, and tent makers were not required to tithe? Only farmers and ranchers? I doubt it. I would be happy to be proved wrong.
 
The argument that the tither is a Pharisee because he follows a rule does not fly because everyone follows a rule of some kind. The tither follows an objective rule and others follows a subjective rule.

No the GE person does not follow a rule. What rule would that be. Give as you are prospered?

Is it possible that the tither is giving 10% because that is the amount that 'the Lord laid on his heart'? Does that make him a Pharisee?

No that is very improbable. It is most likely because some Judaizer by whatever name or no name, was misguided and told him he should, or he accidentally picked it up himself from scripture because he had no sound preacher to protect him and guide him to a spiritual walk of faith.
The actual chances of his picking 10% would be 1 in 100, Or maybe 1 in 98 since we said 100% would violate other principles in scripture.


Is it possible that those who give 'whatever the Lord lays on their hearts' sometimes give exactly 10%? Does that make them a Pharisee?

yes but the chances would be 1 in 100 again pretty odd if a whole bunch show up with that amount. I would say someone has been running around binding other people's consciences.
In fact maybe they should not even know or remember how much thy give and it should not be a set % each month or the same each month. Remember this one
Matt 6:3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
NKJV


No doubt there are some who apply the law of the Tithe in a pharisaical manner. But just because one tithes does not mean he is a Pharisee.

And some just innocently do it because that is what they have heard and have not considered it before the Lord. I would not count them a Pharisee.

But don't you agree we do not need to give the same % every month. And certainly not for ever.
Or We could give a specific amount, not a % at all.
I do not give the same amount each month. I do not give a certain % I don't even check to see the %. Only due to taxes do I even total it up and give it to my accountant to use. But I could not tell you what I gave any month or any year. I give as I see a need and it is always so far over 10% that would not be an issue to me if I thought it mattered. As part of my giving to my church I seek to give a steady minimal amount at least since they have a budget and I don't want to foul them up.
Praise be to God for this.
And praise be to God this year He has seen fit to take all of our money away for years to come by the IRS and I may not be able to give even 10%.

Neither is better or more spiritual or holy or right.
And I won't owe a back % either. I will owe a love to God and zeal and diligence to pay off my debt and get out of debt so I can give again what He puts on my heart, through study and prayer, according as He prospers me and as He providentially brings needs before me should He allow me this.
And if not I will humbly serve Him with a holy desire the best I can. by His grace and mercy.

Phil 4:11 I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. NKJV
 
Last edited:
Ugh, this subject always makes me weary, because I certainly desire to do what is right!

Let me give you a scenario. We always desired to give part of our offering/tithe for orphans and the poor. Fine. When given to a Christian organization, it is considered charitable giving for tax purposes and you can see it as a percentage of your income.

But...we decided to go a step further and simply adopt an orphan even though we had not planned to have more children. So the adoption costs and subsequent food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. becomes money given for an orphan (now part of a family) that cannot be deducted on taxes. I have actually had a pastor's wife tell me that she did not think this "counted" toward giving to God. Talk about legalism??? So it's better to just donate money to the orphanage than to take an orphan and provide for all of his needs and take him into your covenant family and teach him about Jesus???

So bottom line, we do try to give generously, but we consider that we give to the Lord in some ways that do not enter the total amount on our charitable giving line. I am hoping that this is more what the Lord had in mind than trying to find some percentage amount that pleases Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top