Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones. Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine. (Pr 3:5-10)
It is a blessing to give to the Lord. We are blessed by giving (Ac 20:35), and we are blessed as a result of giving (2Co 9:6). God himself delights in our giving (2Co 9:7).
Many people know the beginning of this passage of Proverbs 3, but not many quote it through to the context of honouring the Lord as a result of our trust. To truly honour the Lord with our finances we have to give in a way that requires an engagement of trust, and is not just a token amount from our abundance that can easily be justified by our own understanding. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The kind of giving that really stirs the Father's heart is the kind that comes from faith, that goes beyond what we can easily spare and that genuinely costs us something. I'm not talking about giving irresponsibly, but giving in a way that honours God when we compare what we give to him with what we spend on other things.
Those who keep up to date with the recent comments on this blog will have seen the resurgence in the discussion on tithing. Although not explicitly mentioned, these verses illustrate the principle of tithing. It's not a matter of legalism, but of honour. We honour the Lord in love by giving him the first tenth, even though we could easily give in other ways by leaning on our own understanding. In doing so we trust in his promise of abundant provision.
I seek to honour God with my wealth: by bringing my tithe, giving him the firstfruits of my income that is already his, and by giving to him beyond the tithe in a way that is respectful compared to other things I could spend my money on.
[I also seek to honour the Lord in the way I deal with those who disagree with me on these issues.]
Showing posts with label tithing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tithing. Show all posts
3.7.06
19.4.06
Malachi on tithing
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts. Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the Lord of hosts. (Mal 3:6-12)
This will be my last post in the current series on tithing. It has been a fruitful exercise, with 40 comments on the previous five posts so far. The first post Best before 30AD? currently ranks #2 for the most comments of any post on this blog, whilst curiously, my exegesis on Leviticus 27 and the link between the tithe and the devoted things didn't get a single comment :-(. So now, to fulfil a promise and exegete the Malachi passage...
I actually think this passage is exceptionally clear and unambiguous, and poses no problem to those of us who believe in the principle of tithing. It is those who would dismiss it who must jump through hoops and bend over backwards. The usual dispensational loophole of "Not applicable because its part of the law" has been shut off by the very opening words. The prophet is introducing this discourse on the basis of the eternal nature of God himself, not the temporary nature of the Levitical regulations (if indeed it is valid even to consider these as temporary rather than eternal, yet fulfilled eternally in Christ).
The next argument raised against this passage, is that a God who calls us "robbers" and who talks of us being under a "curse" does not sound like the God of the New Testament. Where are the blessings and grace that is extended to us in Christ? Yet again though, the opening verse put it in context - God does not change! This is not the voice of a separate wrathful Old Testament God who has been replaced by the nice fluffy blessing-dispencing God of the New Testament. God is unchanging, and he is always to be feared and held in awe and reverence. He is still a most holy God who is full of wrath against wickedness, it is just we stand shielded from it because of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. Acts 5 shows us that God is not opposed to reminding his people that he will not be dishonoured lightly.
Some would say that because we are in Christ we don't need to worry about God's curse anymore. On the contrary, I believe that because we are in Christ, God's curse is the only one that we need worry about! No other curse can touch us! (Nu 22:12) It is also important that we understand the nature of God's curse. God never desires to put a curse on anyone. His curse is not like a voodoo hex put on someone who invokes his displeasure. God sets out two paths before us, a path of obedience and submission, and a path of doing things our own way. It was this choice that led to the original curse when Adam chose to do things his way rather than God's. It was the choice laid out for the Israelites in the Law (Dt 30:19). It was the choice set before us when we heard the gospel. Although we have been set free from the curse of relying on the Law for justification (Ga 3:13) it is still true that God sets such decisions before us, and does not force our hand, even though he always desires us to take the right path. As every parent knows, sometimes your children have to find out the hard way, even though you wish it were not so. [And of course we are aware that as Christians we are not immune from the results of the original curse, even though we continually take more land for the Kingdom and see the extension of God's will done on earth as it is in heaven.]
The prophet Malachi reveals that the issue of tithing is one such crossroads in life, and the path we decide to take will have its own divinely ordained consequences either way. If we honour God by bringing him the tithe that is his, then he will bless the remaining 90% so that it produces far more than the 100% on its own ever could have. (See my previous post Is all money equal?)
Other points of note in this passage are "full tithe" and "into the storehouse" (See "What?" and "To whom?") There is also a clear distinction made between tithes and offerings (contributions.) The tithe is not giving, it is already given (See Devoted: Exclusively God's)
It seems that God himself is aware (how could he not be!) that some will be sceptical of this principle, as he invites us to "put him to the test." It is as if God is saying, "You may not believe me, but just try it and see!" It is important that our giving tests God the right way (Malachi 3 and not Acts 5!)
There is more I could say, but that's enough to kick things off, I'm sure the rest will come out in the comments... fire away!
This will be my last post in the current series on tithing. It has been a fruitful exercise, with 40 comments on the previous five posts so far. The first post Best before 30AD? currently ranks #2 for the most comments of any post on this blog, whilst curiously, my exegesis on Leviticus 27 and the link between the tithe and the devoted things didn't get a single comment :-(. So now, to fulfil a promise and exegete the Malachi passage...
I actually think this passage is exceptionally clear and unambiguous, and poses no problem to those of us who believe in the principle of tithing. It is those who would dismiss it who must jump through hoops and bend over backwards. The usual dispensational loophole of "Not applicable because its part of the law" has been shut off by the very opening words. The prophet is introducing this discourse on the basis of the eternal nature of God himself, not the temporary nature of the Levitical regulations (if indeed it is valid even to consider these as temporary rather than eternal, yet fulfilled eternally in Christ).
The next argument raised against this passage, is that a God who calls us "robbers" and who talks of us being under a "curse" does not sound like the God of the New Testament. Where are the blessings and grace that is extended to us in Christ? Yet again though, the opening verse put it in context - God does not change! This is not the voice of a separate wrathful Old Testament God who has been replaced by the nice fluffy blessing-dispencing God of the New Testament. God is unchanging, and he is always to be feared and held in awe and reverence. He is still a most holy God who is full of wrath against wickedness, it is just we stand shielded from it because of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. Acts 5 shows us that God is not opposed to reminding his people that he will not be dishonoured lightly.
Some would say that because we are in Christ we don't need to worry about God's curse anymore. On the contrary, I believe that because we are in Christ, God's curse is the only one that we need worry about! No other curse can touch us! (Nu 22:12) It is also important that we understand the nature of God's curse. God never desires to put a curse on anyone. His curse is not like a voodoo hex put on someone who invokes his displeasure. God sets out two paths before us, a path of obedience and submission, and a path of doing things our own way. It was this choice that led to the original curse when Adam chose to do things his way rather than God's. It was the choice laid out for the Israelites in the Law (Dt 30:19). It was the choice set before us when we heard the gospel. Although we have been set free from the curse of relying on the Law for justification (Ga 3:13) it is still true that God sets such decisions before us, and does not force our hand, even though he always desires us to take the right path. As every parent knows, sometimes your children have to find out the hard way, even though you wish it were not so. [And of course we are aware that as Christians we are not immune from the results of the original curse, even though we continually take more land for the Kingdom and see the extension of God's will done on earth as it is in heaven.]
The prophet Malachi reveals that the issue of tithing is one such crossroads in life, and the path we decide to take will have its own divinely ordained consequences either way. If we honour God by bringing him the tithe that is his, then he will bless the remaining 90% so that it produces far more than the 100% on its own ever could have. (See my previous post Is all money equal?)
Other points of note in this passage are "full tithe" and "into the storehouse" (See "What?" and "To whom?") There is also a clear distinction made between tithes and offerings (contributions.) The tithe is not giving, it is already given (See Devoted: Exclusively God's)
It seems that God himself is aware (how could he not be!) that some will be sceptical of this principle, as he invites us to "put him to the test." It is as if God is saying, "You may not believe me, but just try it and see!" It is important that our giving tests God the right way (Malachi 3 and not Acts 5!)
There is more I could say, but that's enough to kick things off, I'm sure the rest will come out in the comments... fire away!
12.4.06
"What?" and "To whom?"
I have a couple more postings on tithing left in me. It may seem like I am labouring the subject, but I'm just being thorough.
You see, I think sometimes, we can take things for granted, and assume others see things the way we do. We can ask questions like "Do you tithe?", and just take for granted that "What do you tithe?" and "To whom do you bring your tithe?" are obvious.
For me these questions were not obvious. Not at first anyway. I became convicted by the Spirit of my need to tithe before I had received any thorough teaching on the subject, and I was not sure what I should tithe or to whom I should bring it.
I knew that I should tithe "my income" and that I should give it "to God", but very inconveniently God does not have a bank account, and does not accept standing orders or direct debits. Also for people who are taxed at source, there is a question about net and gross; do I tithe everything that comes into my account, or a tenth of what I get on paper?
What?
It is here that the pre-law instances on tithing are very helpful. Abraham gave Melchizadek "a tenth of everything". And Jacob swore to give God "a full tenth of all that you give me."
This takes the whole argument away from petty details like whether it is just "agricultural products" that God is interested in. It's a question of "What has God given me?" If we recognise God as our source, then we acknowledge that all our financial provision comes from him, whether it comes, in the natural, from our employer, as a gift, in return for a service rendered, or wherever else. All that we are and all that we have is a gift from him. To give him the "full tithe" is indeed to give him a tithe of "everything". Since the taxman takes his percentage out of what we have earned, it is natural and only right that we give to God from the full amount before the taxman, whether this is done at source or not.
To whom?
On one level this answer is as simple as it first appears. The tithe belongs to God, and we always bring it to God. Note that in the Old Testament, the Levites collected the tithe. It was not given to them. Not directly by the tithers anyway. The tithe was given to God, and then God gave to the Levites out of the tithe. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is important.
You see, in politics a phrase we hear over and over is "taxpayers money". The government of a country is responsible to the people it represents to spend the money collected wisely. There is a sense among the people of "Hey, that's our money you're spending!" But one thing we never see in the scriptures is the sense of "tithe-payers money!" The people did not give their money to the Levites, and the Levites did not get their income from the people. The people brought their tithes to God, and God gave the exclusive right to the Levites to use the money from the collected tithes. Once the people had brought their tithe, their responsibility ended, whether the money was spent by the Levites wisely or foolishly, they had faithfully brought it to God. Equally the Levites were payed from the tithe by God, and thus it was before God that they were responsible as to how they used the money. (Which is the same as everyone else once you have realised who your true source is!)
So the real question is "Who has the right to be payed by God from the tithe today?" We don't have Levites, but what were the Levites? They were people set apart by God to serve him and minister to his people, who had no other source of income. We certainly have men like this today. We should bring our tithes to God at the place where we receive ministry from those who have been set apart for this work and who have pastoral care and spiritual authority over us. It is they who have the right to take from the tithe, as a payment not from man but from God.
You see, I think sometimes, we can take things for granted, and assume others see things the way we do. We can ask questions like "Do you tithe?", and just take for granted that "What do you tithe?" and "To whom do you bring your tithe?" are obvious.
For me these questions were not obvious. Not at first anyway. I became convicted by the Spirit of my need to tithe before I had received any thorough teaching on the subject, and I was not sure what I should tithe or to whom I should bring it.
I knew that I should tithe "my income" and that I should give it "to God", but very inconveniently God does not have a bank account, and does not accept standing orders or direct debits. Also for people who are taxed at source, there is a question about net and gross; do I tithe everything that comes into my account, or a tenth of what I get on paper?
What?
It is here that the pre-law instances on tithing are very helpful. Abraham gave Melchizadek "a tenth of everything". And Jacob swore to give God "a full tenth of all that you give me."
This takes the whole argument away from petty details like whether it is just "agricultural products" that God is interested in. It's a question of "What has God given me?" If we recognise God as our source, then we acknowledge that all our financial provision comes from him, whether it comes, in the natural, from our employer, as a gift, in return for a service rendered, or wherever else. All that we are and all that we have is a gift from him. To give him the "full tithe" is indeed to give him a tithe of "everything". Since the taxman takes his percentage out of what we have earned, it is natural and only right that we give to God from the full amount before the taxman, whether this is done at source or not.
To whom?
On one level this answer is as simple as it first appears. The tithe belongs to God, and we always bring it to God. Note that in the Old Testament, the Levites collected the tithe. It was not given to them. Not directly by the tithers anyway. The tithe was given to God, and then God gave to the Levites out of the tithe. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is important.
You see, in politics a phrase we hear over and over is "taxpayers money". The government of a country is responsible to the people it represents to spend the money collected wisely. There is a sense among the people of "Hey, that's our money you're spending!" But one thing we never see in the scriptures is the sense of "tithe-payers money!" The people did not give their money to the Levites, and the Levites did not get their income from the people. The people brought their tithes to God, and God gave the exclusive right to the Levites to use the money from the collected tithes. Once the people had brought their tithe, their responsibility ended, whether the money was spent by the Levites wisely or foolishly, they had faithfully brought it to God. Equally the Levites were payed from the tithe by God, and thus it was before God that they were responsible as to how they used the money. (Which is the same as everyone else once you have realised who your true source is!)
So the real question is "Who has the right to be payed by God from the tithe today?" We don't have Levites, but what were the Levites? They were people set apart by God to serve him and minister to his people, who had no other source of income. We certainly have men like this today. We should bring our tithes to God at the place where we receive ministry from those who have been set apart for this work and who have pastoral care and spiritual authority over us. It is they who have the right to take from the tithe, as a payment not from man but from God.
7.4.06
"Don't Tithe" - A response to Christianity Magazine
Trevor mentioned in a post a few days ago how an article brandishing tithing as "unbiblical" appeared in Christianity magazine.
A member of our cellgroup asked me for my opinion of the article, and lent me a copy of the magazine. I thought I would post my response on my blog for the benefit of all my readers.
I have read the article thoroughly and examined all the scripture references used. The author basically makes 11 main points in his article outlined below.
1. I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe
2. People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing
3. Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers
4. Tithing was not required every seventh year
5. Other Old Testament laws no longer apply
6. Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it
7. New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians
8. The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe
9. Periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe
10. Tithing is not biblical
11. Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity
I shall address each point in turn.
Point 1: I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe
If we overlook the flippancy of this remark, and give the author the benefit of the doubt, what he is really saying is that he doesn't have enough money to balance his budget and so the tithe has to go. He actually puts the article into a personal context of where he has recently had to reduce his giving to the church that he leads.
This is an excuse rather than an argument. You always have enough for the things you value. There are people in the same situations as us, who only get paid 90% or less of the income we do, and get by fine. They make adjustments, because they have to. You can learn to live on 90% quite easily whatever financial pressures that come your way.
By saying the tithe has to go, you have revealed that the other expenditures on your budget are valued more highly.
Point 2: People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing
I'm not going to be drawn on this one. Despite the objections that proponents of the 'word of faith' theology generate, not even their fiercest critics can assert they have it all wrong. This is a clear example of an ad hominem argument, where the attempt is to discredit a statement based on the nature of the people who propose it. As such it is a cheap shot, and not worthy of any more time in response.
Point 3: Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers
Not in my Bible! Where does he get this from? I have examined all the passages of scripture he quotes and can find no such statement. I have also looked at all the verses in the Bible where "tithe" or "tenth" is mentioned, again nothing.
All I can think is that he is referring to the fact that the tithe is frequently mentioned in terms of crops or animals. But this is a theme that runs all through the Bible. Is it only agricultural workers who are blessed in Dt28? Is it only agricultural workers who are provided for? Is God himself only an agricultural worker because he only owns the cattle on a thousand hills?
This is reading between the lines, something that is not there. Numbers 18:26 says that the Levites were to collect the tithe from "the people of Israel," no qualification is given.
Point 4: Tithing was not required every seventh year
Strangely enough this verse is missing from my version of the Bible too!
I guess he is implying that since the tithe was described in terms of crops, and the Israelites were commanded to leave their fields fallow every seventh year they would have no crops to tithe. This is a very different argument than saying they were exempt from tithing. Their animals would still give birth during the Sabbath years, and there is nothing to say that they were exempt from the tithe in this year.
This is clutching at straws, and is a very poor and tenuous reason to imply that "Tithing was never a universal principle."
Point 5: Other Old Testament laws no longer apply
I will try to curb my vexation over this one. Anyone who knows me at all will know what a dim view I take on this argument.
Basically his argument boils down to: "Deuteronomy says we should tithe, but it also says we should stone blasphemers. We don't stone blasphemers, so why should we tithe?" In one fell swoop, his Bible has just become one book lighter!
Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy and gave no indication that its authority was diminished. In fact when he was tempted in the wilderness every response he gave came from the book of Deuteronomy. The Devil missed a trick if he didn't realise Jesus was quoting from an obsolete book, and the implication that Jesus himself was misapplying the scriptures is absurd!
As I have said before, we cannot just dismiss any book or command of God, just on the basis of where it comes in the redemptive history of man. Each must be taken on their own merit on the basis of how they transfer to the new covenant in the light of Christ and his work on our behalf.
Point 6: Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it
Yes, Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it. But again, to turn the argument on its head, the reason we don't have to follow the law is because Jesus has fulfilled it. It is easy to see how the sacrifices are no longer necessary, because Christ is our sacrifice, once for all. Circumcision is no longer necessary, because the cutting off of the flesh is no longer done by the hands of man, but by the Spirit, and the fulfilment is found in baptism, and thus we could go through all the laws and legal requirements and show how Christ has fulfilled them for us.
But how has he fulfilled tithing? As I have explained in a previous post in some detail, I really don't buy the dispensational notion that all the commands of God given during the Mosaic Law are a package deal that was just for a period of time. It doesn't fit with 2Ti 3:16 at all.
Point 7: New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians
This is a really poor argument. Alarm bells always start ringing in my ears when someone tries to discount New Testament teaching on the basis of who the words were addressed to. If you can only accept the words of Christ that are addressed to Christians, then you would have to cut out everything before John 20!
We must remember that all the New Testament books were written by Christians for Christians, for the purpose of instructing Christians in their Christian faith.
This argument really does not hold water! If theologies that dismiss sections of the Old Testament get me wound up, those that attempt to ignore sections of the New.... (let's move on swiftly!)
Point 8: The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe
This is the point I have the most sympathy with. I think it is true to a certain extent. The instances of tithing before the Law are in isolation insufficient to establish the principle of tithing.
However once one has accepted the principle of tithing, it is natural to follow the principle back to its source. These pre-law instances convey valuable truth on the "heart" rather than just the "requirement" of tithing. I don't think anyone could argue it was just coincidence that Abraham and Jacob gave a tenth and it was totally unrelated to the principle of tithing established in the law.
Point 9: The periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe
The belief in justification by faith has also been sporadic. Anyone want to write an article that the Reformers got it wrong?
As for the statement "the early church did not tithe," here is a quote from the Didache, the earliest non-canonical Christian writing:
It is clear in this document, that the early church did indeed give the first portion of their goods to support the ministries in their midst, "according to the commandments" of the Old Testament. Now because tithe is not mentioned, you could argue that this portion might not have been a tenth. But what else would it have been? Tithes and first-fruits are closely related in the word anyway, and may actually be one and the same. (Matthew, care to comment? - also, what do you think about the practice of giving the first glass of every bottle of wine to the prophets? ;-))
[Incidentally the Didache also reveals that the early church still recognised the ministries of apostle and prophet... but that's another debate!]
Point 10: Tithing is not biblical
This statement beggars belief! Something cannot be both "a clear command in the Old Testament" and "unbiblical" unless the Old Testament is no longer in your Bible!
Point 11: Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity
Are all the commands of God to be viewed this way? Is it legalistic to get baptised? Is it legalistic to break bread? Is it legalistic to do what God says because he has said it?
The author of this article seems to be proposing that it is better to sacrifice freely than to obey a command of God. This is precisely the opposite to what my Bible says! (1Sa 15:21)
I will let the author himself have the last word.
It is a great shame that in tearing into tithing, he offers no indication to what this alleged "more truly holistic and biblical approach to money" might be. Tithing may seem like foolishness to some, but it is God's foolishness. Do we really think we know better?
A member of our cellgroup asked me for my opinion of the article, and lent me a copy of the magazine. I thought I would post my response on my blog for the benefit of all my readers.
I have read the article thoroughly and examined all the scripture references used. The author basically makes 11 main points in his article outlined below.
1. I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe
2. People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing
3. Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers
4. Tithing was not required every seventh year
5. Other Old Testament laws no longer apply
6. Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it
7. New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians
8. The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe
9. Periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe
10. Tithing is not biblical
11. Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity
I shall address each point in turn.
Point 1: I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe
If we overlook the flippancy of this remark, and give the author the benefit of the doubt, what he is really saying is that he doesn't have enough money to balance his budget and so the tithe has to go. He actually puts the article into a personal context of where he has recently had to reduce his giving to the church that he leads.
This is an excuse rather than an argument. You always have enough for the things you value. There are people in the same situations as us, who only get paid 90% or less of the income we do, and get by fine. They make adjustments, because they have to. You can learn to live on 90% quite easily whatever financial pressures that come your way.
By saying the tithe has to go, you have revealed that the other expenditures on your budget are valued more highly.
Point 2: People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing
I'm not going to be drawn on this one. Despite the objections that proponents of the 'word of faith' theology generate, not even their fiercest critics can assert they have it all wrong. This is a clear example of an ad hominem argument, where the attempt is to discredit a statement based on the nature of the people who propose it. As such it is a cheap shot, and not worthy of any more time in response.
Point 3: Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers
Not in my Bible! Where does he get this from? I have examined all the passages of scripture he quotes and can find no such statement. I have also looked at all the verses in the Bible where "tithe" or "tenth" is mentioned, again nothing.
All I can think is that he is referring to the fact that the tithe is frequently mentioned in terms of crops or animals. But this is a theme that runs all through the Bible. Is it only agricultural workers who are blessed in Dt28? Is it only agricultural workers who are provided for? Is God himself only an agricultural worker because he only owns the cattle on a thousand hills?
This is reading between the lines, something that is not there. Numbers 18:26 says that the Levites were to collect the tithe from "the people of Israel," no qualification is given.
Point 4: Tithing was not required every seventh year
Strangely enough this verse is missing from my version of the Bible too!
I guess he is implying that since the tithe was described in terms of crops, and the Israelites were commanded to leave their fields fallow every seventh year they would have no crops to tithe. This is a very different argument than saying they were exempt from tithing. Their animals would still give birth during the Sabbath years, and there is nothing to say that they were exempt from the tithe in this year.
This is clutching at straws, and is a very poor and tenuous reason to imply that "Tithing was never a universal principle."
Point 5: Other Old Testament laws no longer apply
I will try to curb my vexation over this one. Anyone who knows me at all will know what a dim view I take on this argument.
Basically his argument boils down to: "Deuteronomy says we should tithe, but it also says we should stone blasphemers. We don't stone blasphemers, so why should we tithe?" In one fell swoop, his Bible has just become one book lighter!
Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy and gave no indication that its authority was diminished. In fact when he was tempted in the wilderness every response he gave came from the book of Deuteronomy. The Devil missed a trick if he didn't realise Jesus was quoting from an obsolete book, and the implication that Jesus himself was misapplying the scriptures is absurd!
As I have said before, we cannot just dismiss any book or command of God, just on the basis of where it comes in the redemptive history of man. Each must be taken on their own merit on the basis of how they transfer to the new covenant in the light of Christ and his work on our behalf.
Point 6: Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it
Yes, Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it. But again, to turn the argument on its head, the reason we don't have to follow the law is because Jesus has fulfilled it. It is easy to see how the sacrifices are no longer necessary, because Christ is our sacrifice, once for all. Circumcision is no longer necessary, because the cutting off of the flesh is no longer done by the hands of man, but by the Spirit, and the fulfilment is found in baptism, and thus we could go through all the laws and legal requirements and show how Christ has fulfilled them for us.
But how has he fulfilled tithing? As I have explained in a previous post in some detail, I really don't buy the dispensational notion that all the commands of God given during the Mosaic Law are a package deal that was just for a period of time. It doesn't fit with 2Ti 3:16 at all.
Point 7: New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians
This is a really poor argument. Alarm bells always start ringing in my ears when someone tries to discount New Testament teaching on the basis of who the words were addressed to. If you can only accept the words of Christ that are addressed to Christians, then you would have to cut out everything before John 20!
We must remember that all the New Testament books were written by Christians for Christians, for the purpose of instructing Christians in their Christian faith.
This argument really does not hold water! If theologies that dismiss sections of the Old Testament get me wound up, those that attempt to ignore sections of the New.... (let's move on swiftly!)
Point 8: The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe
This is the point I have the most sympathy with. I think it is true to a certain extent. The instances of tithing before the Law are in isolation insufficient to establish the principle of tithing.
However once one has accepted the principle of tithing, it is natural to follow the principle back to its source. These pre-law instances convey valuable truth on the "heart" rather than just the "requirement" of tithing. I don't think anyone could argue it was just coincidence that Abraham and Jacob gave a tenth and it was totally unrelated to the principle of tithing established in the law.
Point 9: The periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe
The belief in justification by faith has also been sporadic. Anyone want to write an article that the Reformers got it wrong?
As for the statement "the early church did not tithe," here is a quote from the Didache, the earliest non-canonical Christian writing:
But every prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.
It is clear in this document, that the early church did indeed give the first portion of their goods to support the ministries in their midst, "according to the commandments" of the Old Testament. Now because tithe is not mentioned, you could argue that this portion might not have been a tenth. But what else would it have been? Tithes and first-fruits are closely related in the word anyway, and may actually be one and the same. (Matthew, care to comment? - also, what do you think about the practice of giving the first glass of every bottle of wine to the prophets? ;-))
[Incidentally the Didache also reveals that the early church still recognised the ministries of apostle and prophet... but that's another debate!]
Point 10: Tithing is not biblical
This statement beggars belief! Something cannot be both "a clear command in the Old Testament" and "unbiblical" unless the Old Testament is no longer in your Bible!
Point 11: Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity
Are all the commands of God to be viewed this way? Is it legalistic to get baptised? Is it legalistic to break bread? Is it legalistic to do what God says because he has said it?
The author of this article seems to be proposing that it is better to sacrifice freely than to obey a command of God. This is precisely the opposite to what my Bible says! (1Sa 15:21)
I will let the author himself have the last word.
Most Christians don't need freedom from tithing - or even freedom from the guilt of not tithing - they need freedom from consumerism.
Money is the clear and present danger, par excellence, for all Christians in the west. An absorbing materialism and stupefying consumerism which diverts our energies, twists our morality, distorts our understanding and renders impotent our faith. We dare not 'move on' from tithing without 'moving into' a more truly holistic and biblical approach to money. Anything less is to run headlong into a greater slavery.
It is a great shame that in tearing into tithing, he offers no indication to what this alleged "more truly holistic and biblical approach to money" might be. Tithing may seem like foolishness to some, but it is God's foolishness. Do we really think we know better?
6.4.06
Is all money equal?
"Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit" (Pr 10:2 ESV)
"If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy" (Ro 11:16 NET)
Money itself is neutral. It is neither good nor evil (in the moral sense. Having money is a "good" thing in the blessing sense, obviously!) It is the love of money that is a root of all kinds of evil (1Ti 6:10).
However, does this mean that all money is equal? The obvious answer from a purely natural outlook is "Yes, of course!" The £20 note in my pocket it identical in value to the one in yours. It does not entitle me, in a fiscal way, to any more or less than it entitles you. But when we look into God's word, we see that it is God who gives wealth, and it is also he who gives or deprives the ability to enjoy or benefit from that wealth. One man may have much wealth, and yet that money brings him no happiness, in fact it may actually bring him misery, whereas another man with much less may find great contentment and blessing in the money God has given him (Ecc 5:12).
We also see in God's word the principle that a man's labours, and the fruits of his labours, can be blessed by the Lord, or they can be under God's judgement (Deuteronomy 28). So we may have much and yet because of the Lord's judgement it may yield us little in return, or we may have little, but because of the Lord's favour towards us it can yield much. The obvious principle is that it is always better to have a little money with God's blessing, than a whole heap of cash without (Pr 15:16).
It is something to bear in mind, next time you are tempted to fiddle your expenses, omit things from your tax return, install unlicensed software on your computer, or the myriad of other ways we might be swayed to "get a little back" in ways that "don't really matter." It does matter. What will bless you more, saving a few pounds, or the blessing of the Lord on what you have already? Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit!
If you thought I was going to bring this back to the issue of tithing... you were right! By now you should be able to join the dots, but just in case... If money that is robbed from man can never profit, how much less will money that has been robbed from God!? I may have an extra hundred pounds or so in the bank at the end of the month, but what good will that do me unless the Lord blesses me to enable me to prosper from it or to find enjoyment in it. But there is another promise here (I know I'm taking it out of context, but so was Paul!) If the first portion is offered as holy to the Lord, then the rest of the batch is made holy. If we tithe and acknowledge that the first part of our income is holy to the Lord, then the promise of God is that the rest will be blessed. It is a principle of God that he invites us to test him on (more on this another day.)
"If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy" (Ro 11:16 NET)
Money itself is neutral. It is neither good nor evil (in the moral sense. Having money is a "good" thing in the blessing sense, obviously!) It is the love of money that is a root of all kinds of evil (1Ti 6:10).
However, does this mean that all money is equal? The obvious answer from a purely natural outlook is "Yes, of course!" The £20 note in my pocket it identical in value to the one in yours. It does not entitle me, in a fiscal way, to any more or less than it entitles you. But when we look into God's word, we see that it is God who gives wealth, and it is also he who gives or deprives the ability to enjoy or benefit from that wealth. One man may have much wealth, and yet that money brings him no happiness, in fact it may actually bring him misery, whereas another man with much less may find great contentment and blessing in the money God has given him (Ecc 5:12).
We also see in God's word the principle that a man's labours, and the fruits of his labours, can be blessed by the Lord, or they can be under God's judgement (Deuteronomy 28). So we may have much and yet because of the Lord's judgement it may yield us little in return, or we may have little, but because of the Lord's favour towards us it can yield much. The obvious principle is that it is always better to have a little money with God's blessing, than a whole heap of cash without (Pr 15:16).
It is something to bear in mind, next time you are tempted to fiddle your expenses, omit things from your tax return, install unlicensed software on your computer, or the myriad of other ways we might be swayed to "get a little back" in ways that "don't really matter." It does matter. What will bless you more, saving a few pounds, or the blessing of the Lord on what you have already? Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit!
If you thought I was going to bring this back to the issue of tithing... you were right! By now you should be able to join the dots, but just in case... If money that is robbed from man can never profit, how much less will money that has been robbed from God!? I may have an extra hundred pounds or so in the bank at the end of the month, but what good will that do me unless the Lord blesses me to enable me to prosper from it or to find enjoyment in it. But there is another promise here (I know I'm taking it out of context, but so was Paul!) If the first portion is offered as holy to the Lord, then the rest of the batch is made holy. If we tithe and acknowledge that the first part of our income is holy to the Lord, then the promise of God is that the rest will be blessed. It is a principle of God that he invites us to test him on (more on this another day.)
5.4.06
Devoted: Exclusively God's
“But no devoted thing that a man devotes to the Lord, of anything that he has, whether man or beast, or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. No one devoted, who is to be devoted for destruction from mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 27:28-29 ESV)
The twenty-seventh and last chapter of the book of Leviticus concerns the principle (and regulations around the principle) of devotion. Once something was devoted, it belonged exclusively to God and could not be reclaimed or swapped. In fact if someone tried to do a swap for something that was already devoted then both the original and the intended swap became devoted. You get the impression that it was not something the Israelites tried to do, or certainly not more than once!
This is the way the items in the tabernacle were most holy to the Lord. I don't know if it has ever struck you how a 'thing' can be holy? Not because of absence of sin, or any intrinsic moral virtue, but because they were devoted. They only had one exclusive use — to serve the Lord — and it was unthinkable that they would be used in any other way.
This principle clearly carries through to our own walk with the Lord. The modern usage of devotion stems from this principle. We are the Lord's exclusive possession, redeemed to belong to him alone. My life is no longer my own it belongs to Christ. One of the ways the Lord desires us to be holy, is that we should be exclusively his 24/7, not on and off as we feel like it or not.
To see how seriously the Israelites treated the principle of devotion, one only has to read the story of Jephthah (Judges 11). Like my good friend Dave, I could say a lot about Jephthah and the rich seam of typology in this story, but now is not the time.
To see how seriously the Lord himself took the principle of devotion, you only have to read Joshua 7, 1 Samuel 15, or Daniel 5. Violating the devoted things cost Achan his life, Saul his kingdom, and Belshazzar both!
Now here's the thing... when we first come across the principle (and regulations regarding the principle) of tithing in the Law, guess where it occurs? That's right... Leviticus 27!
“Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord." (Leviticus 27:30)
Now when we say that the tithe, or tenth as it literally means, belongs to the Lord, we are not saying it in a way that implies that the other nine-tenths does not. All our finance belongs to the Lord. We enter this world with nothing, and we leave with nothing. We are merely custodians, guardians, and stewards of the resources that God blesses us with. It is never ours in the sense that we have exclusive right to it. But the first tenth is God's in exactly that way! He is claiming exclusive rights to it. The context of the passage and the regulations that follow, reveal that God treats the tithe as if it was something that had already been devoted to him.
This is why Malachi reveals that not to tithe, is not just like being a little stingy with your giving. God treats the tithe as if it was already given. Thus not to tithe is robbing God! If a tithe of your income is £30 pounds a week, and when the offering basket comes round you put in £20, you may see yourself being generous, but what God sees is you reaching in and pulling out a tenner!
We don't often talk about "the fear of God" these days. It seems that we are sometimes guilty of taking this wonderful grace from Christ that we enjoy for granted some times. I was very pleased to see my good friend and one-time bible college room-mate, Richard, has just written on the subject. While it is true that we should never give out of compulsion, there is a very real sense in which the tithe is not giving — because the Lord considers it as if it was already given — it already belongs exclusively to him. Whilst I do believe that there is a heart attitude that we should capture when we tithe, and also real promises of blessing which we can claim (I will come onto these next), the fear of the Lord is a very valid reason to tithe.
I don't want to be found in violation of God's holy things. Even though God is rich in mercy and forbearance, I don't want to take this for granted. Or as it has been said before:
"I don't want to be caught with God's money in my pocket."
The twenty-seventh and last chapter of the book of Leviticus concerns the principle (and regulations around the principle) of devotion. Once something was devoted, it belonged exclusively to God and could not be reclaimed or swapped. In fact if someone tried to do a swap for something that was already devoted then both the original and the intended swap became devoted. You get the impression that it was not something the Israelites tried to do, or certainly not more than once!
This is the way the items in the tabernacle were most holy to the Lord. I don't know if it has ever struck you how a 'thing' can be holy? Not because of absence of sin, or any intrinsic moral virtue, but because they were devoted. They only had one exclusive use — to serve the Lord — and it was unthinkable that they would be used in any other way.
This principle clearly carries through to our own walk with the Lord. The modern usage of devotion stems from this principle. We are the Lord's exclusive possession, redeemed to belong to him alone. My life is no longer my own it belongs to Christ. One of the ways the Lord desires us to be holy, is that we should be exclusively his 24/7, not on and off as we feel like it or not.
To see how seriously the Israelites treated the principle of devotion, one only has to read the story of Jephthah (Judges 11). Like my good friend Dave, I could say a lot about Jephthah and the rich seam of typology in this story, but now is not the time.
To see how seriously the Lord himself took the principle of devotion, you only have to read Joshua 7, 1 Samuel 15, or Daniel 5. Violating the devoted things cost Achan his life, Saul his kingdom, and Belshazzar both!
Now here's the thing... when we first come across the principle (and regulations regarding the principle) of tithing in the Law, guess where it occurs? That's right... Leviticus 27!
“Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord." (Leviticus 27:30)
Now when we say that the tithe, or tenth as it literally means, belongs to the Lord, we are not saying it in a way that implies that the other nine-tenths does not. All our finance belongs to the Lord. We enter this world with nothing, and we leave with nothing. We are merely custodians, guardians, and stewards of the resources that God blesses us with. It is never ours in the sense that we have exclusive right to it. But the first tenth is God's in exactly that way! He is claiming exclusive rights to it. The context of the passage and the regulations that follow, reveal that God treats the tithe as if it was something that had already been devoted to him.
This is why Malachi reveals that not to tithe, is not just like being a little stingy with your giving. God treats the tithe as if it was already given. Thus not to tithe is robbing God! If a tithe of your income is £30 pounds a week, and when the offering basket comes round you put in £20, you may see yourself being generous, but what God sees is you reaching in and pulling out a tenner!
We don't often talk about "the fear of God" these days. It seems that we are sometimes guilty of taking this wonderful grace from Christ that we enjoy for granted some times. I was very pleased to see my good friend and one-time bible college room-mate, Richard, has just written on the subject. While it is true that we should never give out of compulsion, there is a very real sense in which the tithe is not giving — because the Lord considers it as if it was already given — it already belongs exclusively to him. Whilst I do believe that there is a heart attitude that we should capture when we tithe, and also real promises of blessing which we can claim (I will come onto these next), the fear of the Lord is a very valid reason to tithe.
I don't want to be found in violation of God's holy things. Even though God is rich in mercy and forbearance, I don't want to take this for granted. Or as it has been said before:
"I don't want to be caught with God's money in my pocket."
31.3.06
Best before 30AD?
I've not forgotten, that in response to Trevor's post on tithing, I promised to write on the subject. One reader has already reminded me of this in an offline comment! Apologies, this week has been busy, and I wanted to do the subject justice.
I want to start, not with tithing per-say, but with how we apply the Old Testament. Trevor rightly identified that this was at the heart of the issue. We need to understand that while we are not under law but under grace, the reason that is so, is not because the law was part of the Old Covenant which has passed away, and we are now under the New Covenant. People, this is dispensationalism, pure and simple!! The reason is that Christ, the perfect lamb has been slain and so has fulfilled in his body all the requirements of the law in such a way that it leaves nothing to be added.
Do we see God's redemptive plan in two acts, with Jesus coming out in the intermission like the guy who sells the ice-cream, or do we see one eternal plan, centered, focussed and pivoted on Christ as the Lamb in the center of the throne, slain from before the foundation of the world?!
I am disappointed how frequently I come across the attitude amongst brothers, who treat the Old Testament as if it was yesterday's milk. You have to sniff it first to see if it is still OK. As if God's word has a best before date! Or as if the God who wrote the Old Testament was somehow less infallible than the God of the New!
It is because all God's word is eternal that Christ had to come. If the law was only for a dispensation of time, then surely Jesus' anguished prayers in Gethsemane would have been answered. There would have been another way — "Just wait for the dispensation to end, Son. I'm not that bothered about this law stuff really, just thought it would fill some time."
Brothers, I may be being controversial, but I'm unhappy with the "Tithing precedes the law" explanation for why it is still applicable. As if what God said to Abraham is more valid than what he said to Moses. The issue is not when it was said, but who said it! Either it is the eternal word of God or it is not. If it is the word of God then it is applicable for all time, and we are only "free" from it if Christ has fulfilled it for us, once for all, on our behalf. The first commandment was given to Moses, and it is still very much in effect; circumcision was given to Abraham, before the law, and it is not. Let us be very careful that we do not dismiss God's eternal word, just because of when it was spoken, or who it was spoken to. This does not just apply to tithing, but to all the promises and commands in the Old Testament.
As I said on Trevor's comments section, I'll say again: If tithing is a principle in God's word for any time, then it is a principle for all time! Did Christ fulfill the requirement of tithing on the cross? Is it revealed in the New Testament to be just a physical foreshadow of a spiritual reality now revealed though our union with Christ? No? Then it is still very much in effect! The fact that God has said it, is in itself, all we need.
Best before 30AD? You have to be kidding! Heaven and earth have an earlier expiry date!
...this is just round 1...
I want to start, not with tithing per-say, but with how we apply the Old Testament. Trevor rightly identified that this was at the heart of the issue. We need to understand that while we are not under law but under grace, the reason that is so, is not because the law was part of the Old Covenant which has passed away, and we are now under the New Covenant. People, this is dispensationalism, pure and simple!! The reason is that Christ, the perfect lamb has been slain and so has fulfilled in his body all the requirements of the law in such a way that it leaves nothing to be added.
Do we see God's redemptive plan in two acts, with Jesus coming out in the intermission like the guy who sells the ice-cream, or do we see one eternal plan, centered, focussed and pivoted on Christ as the Lamb in the center of the throne, slain from before the foundation of the world?!
I am disappointed how frequently I come across the attitude amongst brothers, who treat the Old Testament as if it was yesterday's milk. You have to sniff it first to see if it is still OK. As if God's word has a best before date! Or as if the God who wrote the Old Testament was somehow less infallible than the God of the New!
It is because all God's word is eternal that Christ had to come. If the law was only for a dispensation of time, then surely Jesus' anguished prayers in Gethsemane would have been answered. There would have been another way — "Just wait for the dispensation to end, Son. I'm not that bothered about this law stuff really, just thought it would fill some time."
Brothers, I may be being controversial, but I'm unhappy with the "Tithing precedes the law" explanation for why it is still applicable. As if what God said to Abraham is more valid than what he said to Moses. The issue is not when it was said, but who said it! Either it is the eternal word of God or it is not. If it is the word of God then it is applicable for all time, and we are only "free" from it if Christ has fulfilled it for us, once for all, on our behalf. The first commandment was given to Moses, and it is still very much in effect; circumcision was given to Abraham, before the law, and it is not. Let us be very careful that we do not dismiss God's eternal word, just because of when it was spoken, or who it was spoken to. This does not just apply to tithing, but to all the promises and commands in the Old Testament.
As I said on Trevor's comments section, I'll say again: If tithing is a principle in God's word for any time, then it is a principle for all time! Did Christ fulfill the requirement of tithing on the cross? Is it revealed in the New Testament to be just a physical foreshadow of a spiritual reality now revealed though our union with Christ? No? Then it is still very much in effect! The fact that God has said it, is in itself, all we need.
Best before 30AD? You have to be kidding! Heaven and earth have an earlier expiry date!
...this is just round 1...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)