tithes

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 06:30 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote:

>The OT tithe is just as you describe: mandatory, but there is no NT
>equivalent.  

I did not say the OT tithe is mandatory. The whole of Scripture maintains
the finacial plan of God to be tithe.  Not just the Old Testament.

To reason that because there is no equivalent NT passage regarding any
aspect of conduct called for in the OT, the mandate for such conduct becomes
superfluous and unwarrented, is to disregard that ALL scripture is given for
instruction in righteousness.  

To reason that the OT must have an equivalent passage in the NT is to fall
into great difficulty.  There are many foundational truths that do not find
an equivalent passage in the NT explicity nor implicitly.  An extreme
example (please forgive the reference) is Exo 22:19.  The spirit of the Law
is to be applied to our Christian walk and not the letter of the Law (2 Cor
3:6), to conclude that tithing was not a practice in the NT based upon a
misunderstanding of the composition of scripture is indeed a serious
departure from God's word.  

An example of this kind of reasoning is found amoung the "Disciples of
Christ" movement.  They teach that because there are no equivalent NT
scriptures concerning musical instruments we are not authorized to use such
in worship.  Well niether is there any NT passage that authorizes electric
lights, carpeting, pews etc.  I am sure you understand my point, it is grim
indeed to draw any kind of a conclusion based upon this kind of reasoning.
Circular reasoning is the downfall of many.

To reason the need to have a NT scriptural equivalent is to deny the Word of
God is monolithic.  

>The Early Church did not tithe, plain and simple.  They gave
>what we would call "love offerings", but there is no proof of the
>continuation of the OT tithe.

I disagree wholeheartedly.  Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy,
and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.  

What other conclusion could be drawn by Matthew but that judgement, mercy
and faith were the aim of the law but not to the exclusion of Tithe nor was
tithe to be to the exclusion of judgement mercy and faith?  I believe that
Matthew would have discourse with your statement!  You have promoted the
idea there is no proof of the continuation of tithe,  Matthew supplies such
in the statement of Jesus.  To deny that Jesus promoted tithe in the NT is a
false premise at best. 

To suppose that Jesus is referring to an OT mandate to tithe as being
inconsistant with His teaching concerning the NT is to void the very heart
of His argument.  He was arguing that the Pharasee's had misssed the spirit
of the law.  They had rules but not the spirit of that law and so He said
"these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone."  What is
the other that is not to be left undone?  The honest and appropriate answer
is that tithe without judgement, mercy, and faith is to leave the spirit of
the law and therefore is to leave the law undone, but it is equally as
inconsistant to have judgement mercy and faith without tithe.    
  
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
establish the law.  

1 Corinthians chapter 9:8-12  Paul writes....Say I these things as a man? or
saith not the law the same also?  For it is written in the law of Moses,
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth
God take care for oxen?  Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our
sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope;
and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.  

Paul quotes a law that has to do with God's law of animal rights but in the
application of that law he shows the spirit of the passage is in reference
to maintaining the ministry.  The OT passage is not in reference to ministry
but animal rights yet Paul maintains that this law was indeed written for
our sakes though the express application of it in the OT was animals but to
us the maintaining of the ministry!
 
>If we are really going to continue the OT tithing, we are in
>serious trouble.  

You have a misconception.  If we are not going to continue the principle of
tithing (i.e. returning that which belongs to God) then we are in serious
trouble with God.

>1) WHEN did such a change occur?
>2) WHO made such a change
>3) WHAT were the limits or additions of the change?
>4) DID this person have SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY to make such a change?

I ask you these same questions concerning your misunderstanding of the
discontinuance of the principle of tithe.    

As to the continuance of the tithe principle I find in 2 Cor 3:6  Who also
hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of
the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.  But if the
ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that
the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the
glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:  How shall not
the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?  For if the ministration
of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness
exceed in glory.  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this
respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.  For if that which is done
away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

What remains?  I think returning what belongs to God is a principle that has
not been done away with.  Your misconception of "giving of an offering" as
equal to tithe misses this point altogether.  I think returning what belongs
to God still remains. I repeat my first conclusion.  You cannot be called a
thief unless you take something that belongs to another.  Do you suppose
that the tithe belonged to God in the OT but does not belong to God in the
NT?  I think not.   

>>If the disciples sold everything and had all things in common (Acts 2) 
>
>When it says "the disciples" it doesn't mean the entire Church at that
>time.  

I am sure that you were "shooting from the hip" here, so I'll qoute the
scripture to clarify the issue.  The entire church is what the scriptures teach.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day
there were added unto them about three thousand souls.  And they continued
stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and
signs were done by the apostles.  And ALL THAT BELIEVED were together, and
had all things common;  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted
them to all men, as every man had need.  And they, continuing daily with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their
meat with gladness and singleness of heart,  Praising God, and having favour
with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should
be saved.
 
The reason they lived in commune was due to Peter's preaching the soon
coming destruction of Jerusalem (Acts 2:14-20), which destruction occured
according to Jesus' prophecy in Matt. 24 Mark 13 and Luke 21 around 70 AD
when the Roman General Titus came to end the Jewish wars. (History 101 -
Josephus).  The cannonization of the NT had not transpired and they only had
the OT scriptures to follow.  Armed with the OT scriptures and the
understanding that the law is not made void through faith, but established,
I can only conclude that the NT church did not do away with the principle of
tithe but understood the pattern of the OT and the teaching of Jesus that
said not to leave either justice mercy and faith nor tithe undone.  

I do not understand why anyone would want to leave either undone?  If you
are so inclined to leave either/or undone, what more can be said, eh?