19th September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #1
Christians have diverse views on lots of things - the issue of Tithing in the New Testament is one of them. Some Christians deny that tithing has any role to play in the NT context, that it is an Old Testament idea, that it is not an appropriate concept after the cross.
Most arguments of this nature are rarely argued at the hermeneutical level (how I read and interpret the Bible) they are usually argued as alternative conclusions with texts sprinkled around the arena.
My interest in this issue is not merely academic. I lead a church. I teach people things about church life. If I misunderstand issues central to church life the consequences are more than significant; the Bible warns not everybody should step into the role of "teacher" since those who teach will be judged with a greater strictness. My interest is not academic for another reason - I had an encounter with God over this issue (don't hear that as an appeal to higher authority for my view, its not what I'm asserting) that changed the way our church has done life for the past 20 years. Out of it has come the most fruitful explosion of church planting and soul-saving I have ever witnessed in my experience of Christianity.
First step in this little journey is to lay a few hermeneutical foundations.
1. I hold a high view of the Bible. I believe ALL scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine. There are many reasons for holding the OT as authoritative - I think the best one is that Jesus did. The early church had no other Bible - they taught NT truth from OT sources. The Holy Spirit did not lead the early church to disconnect from the OT, they embraced it.
2. The NT was not written to teach us all truth. Biblical truth unfolds in streams from First Mention, is developed and expanded through Progressive Mentions and ultimately must be interpreted through the great hermeneutical filter of the cross of Jesus Christ to be rightly applied under the New Covenant. The NT was written to provide us with a pair of glasses to rightly apply OT insights through the cross for life and faith under the New Covenant.
3. Jesus Christ and the Apostles are the infallible interpreters of the OT. When they view an OT passage through the cross they do so authoritatively. Thus we read the NT to understand Apostolic Hermeneutics - what Jesus and the Apostles made of the OT streams of truth and how they apply after the cross. Sometimes we find their understanding of an OT idea in a single verse of scripture. To overlook that passage would be to miss the link between OT and NT.
4. No OT passage of the Bible is to be ignored simply because it is in the OT. The NT does not make the OT irrelevent. The NT applies and interprets the OT. We must diligently seek to learn from the Apostles and ask this question: "How did Jesus and the Apostles view the OT passages and teaching on the subject I am seeking to understand?"
Tomorrow - 4 things the NT writers do with OT passages.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 19-Sep-2005 04:00
27 comments Comments on this post...
19th September 2005Lobby
Allan,
So far so good... =)
* taps fingers on desk...
Well come on spit out the rest... =)
I have a real interest in this as i believe that as Riverviewians grab a hold of this giving thing, we will really begin on the journey God has for us as a church. Like what you describe, more soul winning, more church planting, more lives brought into the Kingdom of God. The fact that RV does as much as it does with the "measley" amounts comming in is a testament to the RV leaderships values in this area. (I say measley, in that I believe the current giving levels should be about ten times greater... ie the giving is about 10% of the 10% it should be...) So if we can continue in this vane and pour every extra cebt that comes in, into these areas of reaching out and ministering to our community and wider, I cant even begin to imagine the impact!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 09:09
Lobby
Cebt=Cent... need i say more? sheesh!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 09:10
rollsy
I've been trying to determine my convictions about tithing over the last couple years.
My dad, being a pastor, is definately in the "let's all tithe" camp. He's by no means money hungry (he gave up being a uni lecturer to pastor - not a great economic move), but I think he sees the great task at hand and simply thinks every Christian should do their bit to make it happen.
I appreciate that view - but I don't know that tithing is any different to the other areas in life that we need to improve.
I personally need to take more time away from work, so I guess I should value the sabbath. After all, Jesus tells me He gave the sabbath to me, not me to the sabbath.
In other words, it's there for my benefit. A gift from God because he knows what will bless my life.
Similiarly, I'm sure God wants me to be more generous. He provides the opportunity to tithe because (a) it reminds me that God provides for all my needs, and (b) helps me to refrain from being materialistic.
As no doubt everyone will soon be saying on this thread, the problem arises when we think tithing is some mystical formula for generating more money. I'm sure it doesn't work like a term-deposit: earning interest in some heavenly bank account. I think it simply helps to keep us focused on what's important (ie not material possesions), and also funds the commission.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 11:08
rollsy
Can I add:
I think a lot of pente churches I've been to are to manipulating when it comes to tithing. I don't see them offering the same level of pulpit-time to other aspects of our Christian life. They should just be honest and charge an admission at the door if they need the cash!
This is particularly true in relation to youth events. Something in me becomes really turned-off when I see a charismatic speaker use emotional tools to extract money from a young person. I feel certain that God does not need to manipulate the vulnerable into donating.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 11:13
Lionfish
Hi Allen,
Thanks and that is a good start.
I am not Biblically trained, but from experience I think that as we explore this topic further, I think that we need to be mindful of a few other p0rinciples such as:
We must acknowledge that there is a clear distinction between OT and NT
There are two distinct covenants between God and His People - Law and Grace
Scriptures need to be read and applied in context (understood in terms of the specifics to whom they were written, why they where written and in terms of the entire chapter and book with which they were written).
We need to be consistent in term of our interpretation and application (eg. If we need to apply one aspect of old testament law then we need to apply all other aspects of law eg. Sabbath, Circumcision etc).
'Hearing from God' needs to be consistent with his word for today. (Always way about this one!).
Biblical Truth (as per scripture) should always take precedence over Tradition.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 11:36
Joel
Heya Rollsy, I understand where you are coming from and can identify with certain aspects of ur agrument however i like to encourage you about making ur convictions from the word not from personal opinion.
It is a given that letting go of money is a hard thing and the ways it can be portrayed from the front can be emotional. But thats not a bad thing. Look at companies in a seculiar context. They build on people's emotions to buy into their product. It works. I wont go into all the verses that support why it is important to tithe as you know all that (flip - u taught me most of what i am today)
But i do want you to really look at why you give and the purpose it is. Its not about making money. So many pastors struggle finanically to fulfill the vision that God has put in their heart becasue of lack of pro-vision. I mean i give because God says to give. Remember that Jesus came to not replace the law but to fulfill the law. Just as you used the sabbeth as an example, id like to move back to tithing. It is essential to tithe so that the church can resource all that it is called to do.
Bud, you got too much to do to worry about peronsal opinions and views. Can i fully encourage you to just jump into everything the word says. If your ideas conflict with the word, then perhaps re-look at the ideas. Gods word is alive and is sharper than a two edged sword dividing even the spirit and soul... powerful.. love ya man. ur rad!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 11:52
Daniel
Allan, I am very excited about this topic that you are going to cover.
Personally, this is of great interest to me. I have heard Pastor Kong Hee from CHC in Singapore preach great messages based on this (look at his series on 'The Word of God' and 'Antinomianisn'). It has wet my appetite to learn more.
Throughout the gospels we can see Jesus teaching directly relating to the OT (read the sermon on the mount and compare that to the 10 commandments - Jesus not only reiterates all of them, he talks about the heart issues behind them.). He truly did come to fulfill the law.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 12:14
Lionfish
Rollsy,
Just a quick question...you say "After all, Jesus tells me He gave the sabbath to me, not me to the sabbath".
Do we keep the Sabbath / Sunset friday to Sunset Saturday? No, as christians we are not under the OT Law and keep a sabbath rest which means we can worship whenever we like.
Christians meet together more often of a Sunday (the Lords Day) to worship, although that could be on saturday night, or tuesday morning etc.
We are no longer under the Law in whole or in part!
Back to tithing.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 12:35
Rollsy
Joel - thanks mate for your thoughts. I agree that you shouldn't sacrifice the word for opionions ... except that sometimes I need to form an opinion about the word!
To simply defer faith to someone else's "opinion" about doctrine is, in my view, not doing the word justice.
For example, the word can be used to support everything from slavery to genocide, if you take a very simple assesment of it. Surely God doesn't want us to take on those ideals ... we need to discover a personal faith and doctrinal position in order to best interpret the word.
And then have a good bible-opinion about it all!!!
I might add, I sometimes think back to some of those ideas that I shared publically from a church platform ... and although I was always sincere, I now regret speaking so confidentally about some of those issues before I had given them enough thought (or had enough courage to challenge the pervading church position).
I won't be in any hurry to talk about all that stuff in the future :) For now I'll just concentrate on being a very basic example of a Christian to my co-workers and friends. I kinda think I do a better job of that anyhow.
How's NZ? Say hi to some sheep for me (but not in the "mummy and daddy special cuddle" sense of the word).
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 13:43
rollsy
Lionfish - that was the point I was trying to make. I think the sabbath is important, but to try to follow a strict formula for it misses the point. I agree you can follow the general principles of the sabbath without being tied to a specific format.
I also feel the same applies to tithing. It's to easy just to allow someone else to tell you what it means, I think the challenge is to uncover WHY God wants me to tithe, and to then apply that principle. For example, if I have absolutely no money, perhaps God would want me to offer a portion of my time or creativity to Him??
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 13:43
Michael
Lionfish,
You sound like a good Lutheran! I think, though, we need to be careful about how we say what we do. Are we 'under' the law in the sense of being required to obey and keep its precepts in order to achieve salvation. No.
Does this, however, exhaust its application? No. The Law was not given to save Israel, in any case. They were redeemed wholly by grace, accepted into the covenant entirely by grace, and sustained by God in hope, entirely by grace. The Law was given, however, to guide them as God's people. Certainly many of the laws given pertain directly to their context - a theocracy with a legislated priesthood and centralised worship etc. Nonetheless, many are also indicative of the righteousness of God, and paradigmatic for the life of God's people in the world, and as such, are as applicable today under the new covenant as they were under the old.
It is a false dichotomy to split between law/grace-Spirit. The NT over and over again indicates that Christian life is life in the Spirit, but also life in accordance with the law of Israel revealed in the OT.
How does all this apply to tithing? Let's wait and see how Allan develops it. I am looking forward to a good discussion, though!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 13:52
shoes
10% is a load of rubbish....
i hope u cover this
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 14:11
Lionfish
Michael, I have to say I feel extremely uncomfortable with the term 'false dichotomy' between the separation of the Law and Grace...we are either under Law or Grace. You can't have your cake and eat it too! As you stated in a previous post "No man is as free as the Christian man" (Martin Luther - paraphrased).
If you want to be under the Law then perhaps the seventh day Adventists have got it all right and we should keep the Sabbath, keep the New Moons and other festivals and stop eating pork chops! Please do not ad anything to the freedom we have in the Gospel...
Similarly I feel uncomfortable with Allan's statement "SOME Christians deny that tithing has any role to play in the NT context", in fact the MAJORITY of ORTHODOX Christians do not adhere to the doctrine of tithing, per se but rather one of the cheerful and generous response in terms of freewill offerings.
I acknowledge that many Baptists subscribe to the teaching of tithing, as do legalistic Pentecostals, Muslims, Mormons, Jews (under Law) and fringe Christian groups (SDA's , Sacred Names movements, Potters House, World-wide church of God, Bostob Church of God etc).
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 14:23
Lionfish
Allan, do you agree or disagree that my own list of principles should be used in addition to yours with the interpretaion of the scriptures?
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 14:27
Major Carter
I don't like getting a sermon with the tithe, when tithing in church becomes it's own little message. In my own life I have seen God's provision. 6 years ago I had to start all over from scratch with $400 and a bag of clothes for me and my boys. I know that when I put God first (as in tithing) that all my and my family's needs will be met. I tithe out of a greatful heart to God, He has taken care of me and my family.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 19:48
nilmot
I think Lionfish is on the money here (pardon the pun) but lets face it there is no such thing as Christian tithing.... Christian giving, yes but not tithing.
First of all are we under the law? ie are we obliged to obey the commands of the Mosaic law? Well obviously not, do we sacrifice animals? Do we put to death those who curse their parents? Do we abstain from certain foods? Do we circumcise our sons on the seventh day? No.... Does that mean the OT has no value? of course not, yet why have we, of all the OT laws, plucked out tithing as being mandatory for Christians?
It is worth noting that OT tithing bears little to no resemblance to contemporary tithing. Under the Old Covenant laws, agricultural products were tithed, not money. In fact there is no reason to believe that Jesus ever tithed, as he was a carpenter, he was not obliged to tithe. Jesus never taught tithing, Paul never taught tithing, so why do we?
It is routinely taught in contemporary Churches that we are obliged to give our tithes (10% of our gross income) to our local church and on top of that we should give offerings (additional money on top of the mandatary 10%) and it is taught that if we do not tithe we are robbing God.
Would it not be better to just drop the whole tithe thing, and simply embrace the NT teaching of generous giving not out of compulsion? Generous giving may mean much more than 10% for certain people in certain circumstances, yet for others at certain times it may mean less that 10%. We should drop the pressure tactics and simply let "Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion" Let it be between the individual and God.
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 20:07
chosen
was abraham under 'mosaic' law when he gave a tithe to melchizadek? no, obviously not. the OT shows that tithing goes back to before it's institutionalisation in the mosaic law...so why can't it continue *after* the law is fulfilled in christ?
i too am eager to hear what you have to say on this topic allan...i've thought about this a lot over the years...
and i think i've come to the conclusion that ALL that i have should be God's...not just 10%...i think it's too easy to go 10% to God and 90% to me to do with as i see fit...alas! this is so much easier said than done...
& what happens to the notion of tithing when you have a situation like that of the early church where everyone held all things in common? no private property, all things held for the common good...and then giving out of that common purse...how many of us would give up all we have to live in that kind of community? i think most people would just prefer to give their 10% and be done with it!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 20:20
nilmot
Yes I have heard that argument chosen, and no Abraham was not under the Mosaic law, just as we aren't, yet neither are we commanded to emulate every aspect of Abrahams life. Animal sacrifices pre-date the Mosaic law. So using the same logic why can't it continue *after* the law is fulfilled in christ?.... Well that argument falls apart pretty quickly.
Your are right though chosen, ALL that we have should be God's, which is precisely why we should drop the 10% thing. And promote, as Lionfish says, a doctrine of a "cheerful and generous response in terms of freewill offerings."
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 20:51
Lionfish
Chosen, are you aware that the SDA's and other Sabbatarians erroneously argue that the institution of the Sabbath goes back before the Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments back to creation - therefore we are obliged to keep it?
Yet St Paul tells us not to let anyone manipulate us to steal the freedom from us by imposing ANY of the Old Testament laws or customs on the Christian:
"16 So don't put up with anyone pressuring you in details of diet, worship services, or holy days (Sabbath days)". Colossions 2:16
In addition, Abraham freely chose to give to Melchizidek himself - this was not a commandment or a Law that he had to follow. If you want to choose to do likewise, then that is great...but it is not a burden that God places or the Church places on Christians,,,or should you place on other Christians.
In fact St Paul writes on this matter "I want each of you to take plenty of time to think it over, and make up your own mind what you will give. That will protect you against sob stories and arm-twisting. God loves it when the giver delights in the giving".
The freedom you have in Christ allows YOU to choose how much you will give. Don't get manipulated or robbed of the Truth!
Ecerything was achieved at Calvary, the Law in all of its fukfillment was nailed to and "finished" at the Cross. You are not under Law!
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 21:32
micmac
Tithing from a Biblical perspective is certainly an important part of the reason why we tithe as a family. I have sat under & been convicted by Al's teaching on the subject & for us as a family the biblical perspective is the place where we begin our commitment to tithe.
But another piece of the argument for us is a simple personal understanding of how life works, even in the church. If I was to say that I supported the work & ideals of our church, but never contributed to it either through my time, my attendance & yes, through my money, then I would be a hypocrite of the first order.
For me, this is especially true given that I live in a wealthy country, with the means to do life at a far greater level of ease & sophistication than most on the planet. If I say I am a Christian & keep my finances from a Church that is genuinely seeking to spread the good news throughout the world, (coz like it or not, it costs money to do this) then I will live inder the condemnation of my own selfishness.
This is how I see it for myself, & is not intended as a judgement upon anyone else
Posted: 19-Sep-2005 22:36
20th September 2005chosen
nilmot and lf...i know those things...was just trying to stir the pot a little :S....
i don't think that we should 'legislate' tithing as a mandatory practice for all church goers, and i fully believe that you should give as you purpose in your heart - cheerfully and willingly...not out of compulsion, guilt or a generous serving of 'hard-sell'....
but perhaps 10% is a good starting place for some, as they build the principle of giving into their lives? don't know...
i guess beyond the word 'tithe' is just the principle of giving the first-fruits to god...giving god our best - whether that's the first part of our finances...or the first part of our day...the best part of our time, effort, energy, love, devotion....
ever tried to tithe on time? give god 10% of your time every day? 6min an hour = 144min = 2hrs 24min [for those who suck at maths like me...!]
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 05:16
Lionfish
chosen...you are EVIL :-)
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 08:46
chosen
whoa yeah! part of the sisterhood devoted to fostering guilt and feelings of spiritual inadequacy while pefecting the art of condemnation for one and all - salvation by works brother....grace was so last dispensation!
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 09:26
Hopeful
Who else thinks that chosen wrote that last post while stroking a white cat?? Dr Evil indeed.
I got so confused about this subject when going through Bible College and I can remember a full on debate breaking out in the midst of a class about whether we should tithe our before tax income or our after tax income. What amused was that nobody had ANY income at the time ... we were at Bible College and broke.
What I know for sure is that during a two year period when I did not tithe I never seemed to have any money and really struggled to pay the bills. It seemed like the second I began to tithe again I had extra cash in my wallet and was always able to find the money for those little extra bills I wasn't expecting. It is one of those "unexplainable" things that just "is" and I don't argue or worry about it anymore but like Nike I just "do it".
I actually think of tithing the same way I think of paying taxes and agree with whoever it was that said real giving is when you choose to give money over and above your tithe.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 15:40
Gessey Meyer
Chosen you make a great point about giving first fruits to God, giving him the best of your time, effort, energy, love, devotion.
I agree with you totally, however these are not going to pay the bill's and enable outreach, missions trip, staff members to be able to their support families, and a whole host of things riverview and many other churches do.
I can understand why people feel tithing should be optional, and we should just give out of generosity without emotional influence from the people on stage... however if we do that we take a significant risk of not being able to fund such a large entity as riverview and do the things we know we are called to do.
Would you agree that most people are NOT naturally generous with their money and prefer to guard it closely? the truth is that the people on stage really do need to convince the congregration that we have a brilliant cause which is worth giving to, otherwise people may not give!!
I agree that we are not called under law to tithe, but God does ask us in Malachi to test him with our giving, and says he will bless us greatly if we do, how is it therefore wrong to lay this down as a challenge to people in church?
If everyone at riverview made the call to tithe, we would have much more to be able to do things overseas through our tv show and the childrens foundation, and inside our own church God would meet each person and "throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."
To me it feels like God is giving us a challenge to tithe, with a promise to reward us if we do, and the pastors on stage re-inforce that each week. I think we hold back from it though and become defensive because we are naturally hesitant to part with our money.. It really is our lack of generosity that i believe we need to address.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 16:58
chosen
gessey...i mostly agree with you - personally i try to tithe when i get paid, it's one of the first things that i do when i sit down and take my tax out, take my tithe out, pay my bills, then see what i have left over to live on...
my concern is when it goes over the line into legalism. a command 'you MUST...', because you can't force obedience from the heart - i think [and maybe i'm a heretic] people need to have a revelation of tithing before the power of the promises can take effect in their lives...
it doesn't build you as a person - it doesn't expand your life if you give begrudgingly and through clenched teeth...
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 19:46
22nd September 2005simple trust
Gessey, You say that you "agree that we are not called under law to tithe" and you "can understand why people feel tithing should be optional" but "however if we do that we take a significant risk of not being able to fund such a large entity as riverview"
I think this summarises the situation pretty well. Even though there is no law that we MUST tithe, the church leaders pressure the congregation to do this to meet the budget.
The people on stage are motivated by a financial requirement to sustain the organisation rather than a conviction that this is a biblical truth which must be expounded.
Gotta be worth pondering......
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 17:26
20th September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #2
A scan of the comments in response to #1 underlines the importance of laying a hermeneutical foundation rather than rushing to get into an argument about conclusions. Nilmot asserts the tithe has nothing to do with the NT church and appeals to generous giving as the only relevant issue; from the words he uses it sounds as if he draws his theology of giving from the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians - but what was Paul referring to? Is that all Paul has to say about NT giving? Ideas in the Bible have a beginning, they develop through progressive revelation, and they demand the consideration of what Conner (Interpreting The Scriptures) calls "the complete mention". One text is not a theology. The stream of revelation is a theology. Don't jump to conclusions until you have worked first mention, progressive mention and complete mention.
Nilmot would like to confine the OT tithe to something that only has agricultural relevence - but is that what the New Testament writers did with it? The New Testament writers are the infallible interpreters of the Old Testament, thus we are in search of an Apostolic Hermeneutic. Don't rush to conclusions ladies and gentlemen. Lionfish is of the opinion that its "one in, all in" regarding the Old Testament - if anything of the Old Testament law is embraced in the New Testament we must embrace it all. Is that what the Apostles did? Was that the Apostolic Hermeneutic? The counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15 didn't see it that way when trying to define the counsel they would give to Gentile converts. They embraced 4 Old Testament issues and applied them as relevent for their circumstances.
I embrace in the system of hermeneutics I use the concept of the infallibility of Jesus and the Apostles as interpreters of the Old Testament - Apostolic Hermeneutics. This requires of us that we read the New Testament recognizing that the cross has changed things - but asking the question HOW? It is the Apostles who give us the clues as to what to do with OT truth, and you have to read it all, since their perceptions and insights may occur in a single verse of scripture. Let's look at some examples.
The Apostles do different things with different streams of Old Testament truth. Some OT truth has been fulfilled and completed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, the truth that began with first mention and progressive mention in the OT comes up to the cross and terminates there with Christ as the fulfillment. Example: The Passover Lamb - Exodus 12. Why don't we still sacrifice lambs at Easter given that Exodus 12:24 says of the Passover Lamb "you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever."? The reason we don't do lambs any more is because the Apostles interpret the issue as fulfilled in Christ. Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7 "Christ our passover lamb was sacrificed for us." The Apostles interpret the OT and declare it as fulfilled - it IS an ordinance to be kept forever, but the way it is now kept is by faith in Christ.
Is that what the Apostles do with ALL the ideas from the OT? The simple answer is NO.
Some OT streams of truth come up to the cross and diminish in their importance without termination. I think an example of that is the Sabbath Day. One of the reasons for that is the fact that the first mention and progressive mentions of the Sabbath demonstrate that it is a stream of truth with multiple facets. One of those facets is that of a memorial of creation, another of those facets is as a sign and a seal of Israel's covenant relationship with God. It became a sign and seal for Israel. The complete mention on the Sabbath Day demonstrates that the Apostles saw it as fundamentaly changed by the cross, but not necessarily terminated. That's one of the reasons for the ongoing fuss about the Sabbath - the NT doesn't proclaim it as terminated. View the Sabbath through the eyes of the Apostles and you hear things like Romans 14 - "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind ... He who observes the day, observes it unto the Lord; and he who does not obseve the day, to the Lord he does not observe it." It has changed in its significance but because of its varying facets it can still be observed legitimately.
A third possibility is that a stream of truth flows through the OT, comes to the cross, and instead of terminating because of fulfillment, or reducing in its significance, it actually INCREASES in significance and becomes MORE of an issue in the NT than it was in the OT. I suggest an example of that is the issue of moral purity. In the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 it states "You shall not commit adultery". What does the cross do to that OT commandment. It INCREASES in the NT. The words of Jesus in Matthew 5 herald a New Covenant in which moral purity plays a more profound role than was called for under the OT. "You have heard that it was said to those of old 'You shall not commit adultery' but I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart." The council of Jerusalem instructed that the new believers were to abstain from 4 things - one of them was sexual immorality. This is a matter of GREATER weight in the NT than in the OT.
The fourth thing that can happen to an OT stream of truth when it comes to the cross is that it passes through the cross into the NT community without change. It's not a matter of one size fits all when it comes to the Law. The Apostles did different things with different aspects of the Law when applying truth to the NT church. Example: The fifth commandment from Exodus 20: "You shall honour your father and your mother that it may be well with you, that you may live long in the land." Did that commandment terminate at the cross? Did it morph in some way into the NT? Did it diminish in its importance in the NT? None of those - Paul drew this commandment lock, stock, and barrel into the NT church - its not one bit different as a claim on our lives than it was under the OT. How do you know? Follow the Apostolic interpretation of this law - Ephesians 6 - "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour your father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." He quotes OT law and applies it without change to the NT community.
It's not a one size fits all situation when it comes to the NT and the application of streams of truth from the OT. OT truth can terminate, morph, increase, or continue unchanged through the cross in terms of its application to NT life.
So, now we return to our question. What does this mean for Tithing? Before you can answer that question there's work to be done. What is the first mention? What is the progressive mention? What is the complete mention? THEN - What did the Apostles do with that stream of truth in the NT? Don't just rush to a conclusion - do the work.
More tomorrow.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 20-Sep-2005 03:00
20 comments Comments on this post...
20th September 2005chosen
some good points allan...funny how we can get so black and white on things when really there are graduations of colour....
i think for some though, their problem with an approach like this is the question of 'who determines what continues, is fulfilled, is more important or less important?' [even though allan, you've said we need to look to what the apostles have written - many quibble over what *exactly* it is that was *meant* by a certain turn of phrase...]
and then this kind of interpretation also doesn't allow for absolute statements which are an absolute must if one is going to be authoritative and god like in their spiritual gianthood [very tongue in cheek - please hold the stones]....
it's so much easier surely to paint all of the OT commandments with the same brush? [sarcasm!]
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 05:28
JeffTyler
I am enjoying getting some good old fashioned bible college out of a blog.
I remember Sy Rodgers saying that 'If God has spoken to you about a specific thing in your life that you must do, then do it by all means. But don't go round expecting others to do that same thing. It was your revelation'.
...I guess God appears to be a gracious God...
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 05:47
Lionfish
Allan, very respectfully, I am uncomfortable with this teaching esp. "progressive revelation". This could (and has) lead to teaching that takes preference over the scriptures...it appears most unorthodox - I could be wrong though, but need to look into this further as the Berearans did.
Do you disagree then with my own list of principles for Biblical interpretation?
Thanks, for your efforts in any case.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 06:02
micmac
Awwww; no one told me there was going to be homework!!
Al, do old fashioned pathetic excuses count in a blog for not doing your homework, i.e. the dog ate my modem etc?
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 06:59
Roger
Thanks Allan, will do as requested - hence, no comment.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 07:16
Joel
Can i get off the point just a bit to ask a question... Do people tithe as a means that God will provide or do they tithe becasue the word says tithe?
I like what Wayne Alcorn said at a recent conference. He mentioned that tithe is not an option that we can base our guarenteed blessing. He says its CURSE Insurance. Our tithe should be bottom line and anything above it is then regarded as sacrificial giving.
Personally I have been so challenged recently to take the word for what it is worth. I agree with one of the comments Rollsy made to me yesterday about forming an opinion on the word but i cannot make assumptions becasue it effects my personal life style. Too often i feel people get so argumentive on biblical topics such as wealth/tithing becasue it does not suit them.
If we are living anything different form the word then we must change our living. Gosh its hard though and it takes a constant focus to keep living by the word to reknew our mindsets...
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 07:59
Paddo
Hi all,
this Rocks... so good to get some thoughts that are truely challenging and exciting.
Allan, thanks for your servant heart in putting all this together. I truly appreciate the effort your taking with this topic. I trust that as i keep an open heart to your teachings, and everyones comments, God is going to do a fresh work in my heart regarding tithing, which is very exciting indeed.
Joel, I tithe because for several reasons, but through training my heart i have tried to keep it free from a reward basis (though it is promised and God lays down the gauntlet with challenge). I will not (as much as possible) give out of a motive of getting. my reasons are:
1) my father in the faith... Abraham, as mentioned, he tithed.
2) it is right to support those who give up there lives for the work of the gospel. it is a challenging thought for me to think that my pastor is doing me an amazing service by preaching the gospel to me, not lording it over me, as it may appear.
3) everything i have belongs to the Lord and to my brothers/sisters anyway.
4) my heart yearns to give that part to my local congregation. I am not only doing my church leadership, but also my brother in the pew beside me, a disservice if i don't 'carry my weight' as it were.
perhaps that last one is not based in the Lord. For all those reasons above i am truely happy that there is some solid discussion happening on this topic. I only get a few sentences from the pulpit before my tithe, and it's a little hard to put my finger on what i believe, from the scriptures, and what biblical basis i have for my convictions.
Again thanks to everyone for throwing there hearts and passions into this topic.
much love all around
paddo
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 09:47
Daniel
I am not very knowledgeable in the bible, however, one thing I know... there are some things from the old testament that, although considered law, apply today more than ever. It is fare to say that as Christians, we are to be generous and that is enough. However... with every ones own interpretation of generosity how will the church be thoroughly resourced to make the huge impact in the local and international community that it is.
I am not under law but under grace. And for me, Gods grace has allowed me to see the importance of the local church and the importance of finance. I do not argue with the tithe or giving. God has given me so much. I do not tithe because God requires my tithe... if the Almighty can pull a coin out of a fish's mouth, why does He need my tithe?
As I'm writing this, I have an impression on my heart that, as a NT Christian, the tithe is actually made for me, the same as the Sabbath. By tithing, whether it is comfortable to do so or not, I am demonstrating that God is Lord of my life and that I trust him with the thing that is most precious to me - my finances. In doing so, God multiplies it in a way that only he can do... my faith is multiplied, my obedience and consistency is multiplied, and the impact that the finance would have is multiplied. I am more able to stay faithful to God in the harder times, because I am faithful to Him in the good times.
I just thank God that I am blessed with finances. He has allowed me to bless others through my "giving" (ie world vision etc). But I believe that the tithe actually blesses me. God is faithful.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 09:55
Daniel
I want to clarify that I do actually tithe. I just re-read my post, and I think that by this statement - "I do not tithe because God requires my tithe... if the Almighty can pull a coin out of a fish's mouth, why does He need my tithe?" I may have inferred that I "do not tithe".
I meant to say that, "my reason for tithing is not because God requires my tithe... if the Almighty can pull a coin out of a fish's mouth, why does He need my tithe?" I tithe because... (refer to previous post).
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 10:30
Lionfish
Is tithing to a Pente what Sabbath keeping is to an SDA?
If you asked the same question regarding the need to keep the Sabbath of an SDA, would you get a similar hermenutical justification?
They also claim the Church has had a progressive (latter) relvelation on the need to keep the Sabbath as the Jews kept it.
Is tithing a 'sacred cow' within Contemporary Church circles.
Just thinking allowed.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 10:52
chosen
just had a confirm code AI...artificial intelligence...what too many christians use to justify poor doctrine and theology!!!! [oops! not having a dig at anyone honest!!! just amusing myself while i render...]
LF...just thinking aloud [ie out loud - so others can hear you]...or thinking allowed [ie. you are able to do so wtihout getting in trouble]?
'coz given recent topics on the blog...i personally thought that was quite funny! even if it was a mistake, the double entendre is giggle-worthy! :)
in answer to your question LF...is it a sacred cow? possibly...except we don't have moses to stand between us and the plague that is sure to come [although we have one greater than moses]!
sacred cow...or straw man? either/or...both/and? depends what part of the 'contemporary church' circle you're travelling i guess
but i don't think tithing is to pente's what sabbath keeping is to sda's...or maybe it is and i just make a very poor pente!!! which is entirely likely given i hate denominational divides and would love to see them breached far more often than they are....but that's another topic altogether, and i'd hate to hijack this one coz it's so important.
btw...where is everyone today? too busy at work to drop a line in and say hi? or the topic is just not interesting enough...maybe the focus shoulld be on prosperity gospel..,that'd get a few hackles up! grrrr...
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 11:57
Daniel
Lionfish - "Is tithing a 'sacred cow' within Contemporary Church circles."
I don't feel that it is a 'sacred cow'. From my experience at church (mind you I have been saved only for 4 years), many people do view it in very high regard. I believe that it is part of the package of following Christ - having a heart sold out for God... symbolising that everything I own is from God and belongs to God.
However, If your church's weekend celebration services has a strong evangelical focus, I do not feel that a message on tithing should ever take precedence over a "cross centred" message. Jesus is the one who saves... not the tithe. The cross should be the central focus at every church service.
That being said, once someone becomes a Christian, they should be taught all facets of christian living... one of them (I believe) is the tithe.
By making a decision a few years ago to try faithfully to practise what I read in the bible, I have committed to tithe whether prompted to or not during the offering time of the service.
I am not someone persuaded easily by fancy sermons. I rather seek out a personal conviction on biblical truths. Being filled with the Holy Spirit has allowed me to discern the truth of what preachers say. I do not take a legalistic approach to the bible, but I do not take a casual approach either. When Allan (or any pastor) writes or speaks on OT truths in the NT, I would read it, think about it, match it to what the Bible says, and then pray (I should try to be more diligent in this practice).
God is faithful. If you earnestly seek to know His will, he will show you. Just don't take a legalistic approach. Be open to the Spirit. The christian life is about liberty. To me, tithing is very liberating. Rather than being a slave to my money, I make it a slave to me.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 12:01
halieus
The argument really isn't whether we should give to God's purposes, and give generously, from the heart, because without question we should. I also don't think it's an Old Vs New covenant issue although tithing is connected with the Levites and the temple at Jerusalem.
The argument is whether we should be compelled (as the biblical Jews) to give the sum of one tenth of our income and in the extreme, whether we are required and obligated to God to give precisely one tenth of our earnings lest we "rob God".
I don't think I'm obligated to that amount. I don't believe that the NT church paid a tenth, and it's not taught in the NT although there are ample opportunities for it's mention by Paul when speaking in the context of supporting the work of the ministry. It seems to me that the early church gave as they were able and had decided in their hearts to give.
As far as I know the early fathers don't support it either and it may have been in my opinion re-examined later to support ministers and the building of 'Christian temples'.
I think it's probably debatable but I agree with the negative (against) argument and I think there's no evidence that NT believers were compelled to give a certain percentage of their income or property to support their churches (that met mostly in homes) so neither are we.
I think various churches have a wide range of traditions, some good, wholesome or just harmless and some that are not so good, some silly and some serious. I personally place tithing into the 'not so bad' tradition, as a tradition, being justified by maybe things like the good principle of commitment, committing oneself to pay a certain amount each week as an anchor against sloping off, taken from the OT as an example.
The problem for me is the compulsion, the guilt, the cajoling, the teaching of it as not just a good principle but as a command, an obligation carrying a curse, a requirement of our New Covenant in Christ. I don't feel there is any NT support for that, there's far more weight against usury than there is for tithing, I think.
I'm still interested in what Allan has to say about it though.
To reiterate, it's good and important to give to Gods work and not a bad thing to give, firstly to the poor then to evangelists or other ministers and to support and maintain your church and it's various projects. I think we should give what we determine is the right amount for us whether it's 10% or 20% or 5% or no percentage or a small amount one week and much more on another etc.
If you see this as an argument against giving money you're mistaken, just as the argument against prosperity doctrines is not an argument against having wealth or being wealthy.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 14:47
Jamin
Jesus has the last word in the NT about tithing and he says to do it. Really, that's enough isn't it?
I feel like so often we have fallen in the ditch on the otherside of the path when we are talknig about grace and law. We let people off the hook which results in people often falling to the lowest common denominator. For example - if you are allowed to wear shorts and t-shirts to work because there is no rule - then how many are going to wear a suit or even dress pants and shirt. Not many! If we say to people well just aim to give 10% becuase it's the biblical pattern but if you can't afford it one week then just give what you can then how many are going to consistently give 10%?? Not many!
So, when we don't say to people "look the bible teaches the first 10% belongs to God so you as a Christian have a responsibility to give it. By the way - if you don't, Malachi says that God will curse you (read it!) but if you do he says he will open the flood gates of heaven!" but we just say give what you can afford - then we teach people 1. to bring a curse upon themselves (read it) and 2. we have to keep pushing people for money every week because we are not getting enough.
Just a theory that I have about human behaviour??
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 15:55
Lionfish
Hi Allan, just another quick question:
When you use the words "progressive revelation" in this context are you talking about about "post biblical" revelation?
Jamin...if God curses people who do not tithe, then are we not back into the land Prosperity theology by defualt?.
Halieus is right...this is more than about tithing - its about Grace vs Law, and also about the cuture of money - fund raising, teaching, giving and transparency within the Church.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 16:06
Jamin
So often we try to fit God and scripture into what we won't to believe. The facts are that God says there are consequences to the choices we make - particularly in reference to obedience and disobedience.
Malachi 2:2 says 2"If you donot listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name," says the LORD of hosts, "then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart."
Malachi 3 discusses the fact that people are cursed because they have robbed God of the tithe.
If that had changed it might have been prudent of God to mention it?
As far as prosperity gospel is concerned, and really any deception - there is usually 95% truth and 5% lie - just enough to really twist things.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 16:17
halieus
I've read it Jamin, I promise.
I have a friend who was involved in a legalistic cult for a number of years who by the grace of God came to the Truth and has settled into a local charismatic church that will remain unnamed. He was excited to become a member but they've refused him membership because he says he can't guarantee he'll give a tenth every week. He's severely disabled and his pension doesn't always stretch.
We as a church ought to give money, help and friendship to him in his need but instead he's kept on the outer in his chosen fellowship. As far as I'm concerned they couldn't pay me to become a member, I don't want to be a member even though I appreciate their church and give an offering to them when I go there but often my money is better spent helping my disabled brother get through the week.
It meant a lot to him to be counted as a member but they've refused him because he can't commit to tithing. I find it pretty sad and contrary to the Gospel.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 16:44
Art Vandelay
I agree (with tithing) as tithing was before the law with Melchizedek and Hebrews refers to him being a type.
But what is to be done with the tithes. Should the organisation receiving the tithes then tithe to another organisation outside of related programs?
Wouldn't it be great if the local Baptist church gave money to the Salvo's.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 18:14
nilmot
Well Allan, you seem to imply that I and perhaps Lionfish are jumping to hasty conclusions, please be assured that the conclusions I have come to, have not been hastily formed....
You ask "would (I) like to confine the OT tithe to something that only has agricultural relevence?" Well yes, I would like to leave tithing in it's Biblical and cultural context rather than put my own hermaneutical spin on it, I can see no good reason to embrace this aspect of the law. Of course you haven't yet given us any reason for NT tithing, so there is not too much to debate, we will have to wait for you to build your argument.
Well Jamin, "Jesus has the last word in the NT about tithing and he says to do it." Well that is not exactly true. I presume the verse you alude to is
"Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others."
This verse speaks nothing to us of Christian tithing, but rather Jesus is simply talking about the law, and yes the Pharisees were obliged to tithe just as they were not allowed to eat pork or work on Saturdays. Note also that money is not mentioned only agricultural products.
I really can't understand this insistance on the tithe, when it is clearly not taught in the NT, perhaps Pastors are worried that without a law of tithing that Jamin may be right when he says "how many are going to consistently give 10%?? Not many!"
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 20:21
nilmot
I think Lionfish make a good point in drawing a comparison to the SDA's and the Sabbath.
I just noticed Gessey's comment made today on yesterdays thread, he echoes Jamins comment about why we need to teach tithing.
"I can understand why people feel tithing should be optional, and we should just give out of generosity without emotional influence from the people on stage... however if we do that we take a significant risk of not being able to fund such a large entity as riverview and do the things we know we are called to do..... the truth is that the people on stage really do need to convince the congregration that we have a brilliant cause which is worth giving to, otherwise people may not give!!"
Phil has been quite honest about this as he has said on more than one occasion that part of the reason they talk about tithing and giving as often as they do is that if they don't they tend to recieve less money.
Posted: 20-Sep-2005 20:48
21st September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #3
The Apostles are the infallible interpreters of the OT, thus providing us in the NT with a set of glasses through which we can rightly apply the streams of Biblical truth that flow from Genesis to Revelation.
The cross of Christ is the great hermeneutical filter through which all truth must ultimately pass. Truth is introduced, developed, and expanded as the covenants of God unfold in human history leading toward the consummation of the New Covenant in the Everlasting Covenant, with the cross of Christ being the great watershed.
The NT clearly teaches that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness - by the works of the law no flesh will be justified - but that is not the only work of the law. The law of the Lord is perfect, enlightening the eyes. Truth for the NT believer is not confined to the NT. The Holy Spirit led the early church to build their theology on an Apostolic understanding of OT prophecies, OT types and shadows, OT law, OT personalities, OT Psalms, Proverbs etc. All scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine. You scoff at, belittle, or ignore the OT at your peril. Jesus didn't, neither did the Apostles. What they DID do was interpret it. I contend they did it infallibly.
So many people rashly shoot their mouths off about what they believe and don't believe, yet they've never done the work of observing first mention, progressive mention, complete mention and MOST IMPORTANT, observing with care what Jesus and the Apostles did with that stream of truth.
I will address some of the comments already made on the blog at the end of this series. Rather than run down every side street attempting to address every puppy with an idea to float, we'll work away at the subject piece by piece and address the questions, protests, and criticisms at the conclusion.
Thus the question at this point might be to ask "where does the stream of Biblical truth regarding Tithing begin?"
Sometimes a Biblical concept occurs before the actual word is first mentioned. There are some who contend that the concept of Tithing begins in the Garden of Eden with the tree Adam and Eve were commanded not to touch - that the idea begins with God's abundant provision, a portion of which is God's alone and not for our personal consumption. I think the idea has merit; it is consistent with the Biblical stream on Tithing as I understand it. Regardless, there is no question about the first mention of the word "Tithing". It is first mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 14:18-20.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth;
Gen 14:20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
This is a stunning piece of scripture. There are 5 first mentioned principles in these 3 verses. They are pregnant with the beginning of Biblical streams of endless dimensions.
1. The first mention of Melchizedek. Though the name is only spoken twice in the whole of the OT, Psalm 110 and the book of Hebrews will not only dissect the meaning of the name, "King of Righteousness", but declares this to be the pattern and order of Christ's own everlasting priesthood.
2. The first mention of Salem - Jerusalem - a stream that will conclude with a New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God in the book of Revelation.
3. The ministry of bread and wine.
4. The first mention of "Priesthood" in the Bible. In seed form from the first mention of Priesthood we are introduced to the everlasting ministry of Jesus Christ and see in seed form the very nature of the ministry of a Priest - standing between God and Man, proclaiming reconciliation and blessing in both directions.
5. The first mention of Tithing.
The first mention of Tithing lays it directly alongside the first mention of Priesthood. This is a simple sentence, but is has profound implications.
What will progressive mentions of tithing reveal? Will the connection between the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ and tithing be reinforced in the Progressive Mentions of tithing as the Bible story unfolds, or will it prove to have been no more than a singular occurrence, a "one-off" experience not intended to teach or convey more than the incident itself? What will the NT writers make of this passage when they draw OT stories, personalities, principles etc into the world of the NT believer? Will they reinforce the connection between Jesus Christ and the Tithe, will it increase, will it morph, will it terminate, or will it proceed into the NT unchanged?
It is the Apostolic witness that must answer these questions, not your own perceptions of church, money, prosperity, giving, etc. The Apostles are the infallible interpreters of the OT scriptures, not you, not I.
Let them speak. More tomorrow.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 21-Sep-2005 03:00
41 comments Comments on this post...
21st September 2005paul benger
Alan I congratulate you on this post. You've obviously done some work on this subject and therefore your comments and thoughts are well presented and argued. I particularly liked the phrase "The cross of Christ is the great hermeneutical filter through which all truth must ultimately pass." The OT can only be interpreted and applied via NT eyes.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 03:49
Lionfish
Interesting.
Nilmot is correct in his post yesterday, our conclusions have not been drawn hastily, or without thought - but over a long period of time, and much reading.
I will stop floating idea's until the end, digest it all before responding. And if need be, if my theology needs to to stand corrected, or modified I will admit it....
Though Allan, if this turns out that you are making a case for a 'Church Tradition' something that 'is part of what we choose to do as a Church', like confirmation in a mainstream church - then this needs to be couched correctly - as an extra-biblical tradition, not strictly Bibilcal truth, decoupled from prosperity, marketed an promoted as such and a risk management policy put in place to prevent 'emotional' or inapparopraitte appraoches to leveraging funds to support your visions.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 06:11
Lionfish
I am beginning to enjoy this hermenutical approach. I can see great application for it.
...I'm thinking one could end up with numerous wives and concubines...
...but that's not a good idea, as that would be far, far more expensive than tithing! :-)
Sorry last 'idea' to be floated for now :-)
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 06:13
Roger
A full hermeneutical examination of this subject demands more space than this blog site (or time) allows. Therefore, in order to keep the topic salient I want to narrow my response down to the immediate question. That is, "Is tithing still a command to be obeyed in today's NT church?"
Although the origins of OT tithing are interesting, it matters not whether we can infer an origin with Abraham, or whether we take the specific instruction regarding tithing to have originated with Mosaic law. Rather, the issue we need to examine is the command to tithe, what purpose it served, on what basis it was expected, and what was done with the goods and produce brought into the storehouse? That it was agriculturally based is evident. That much of the giving was related to animal sacrifices is also apparent. It is also revealed that Israel was expected (2 Chron 31:4-5) to support the work of their priests and Levites in their work for the Lord. Extra biblical references also point towards similar "taxation" systems throughout the Middle East.
Taking that a system of tithing was a direct command under Mosaic law, the question then must be asked, "Does this command pass through the filter of the Cross?"
Interestingly, Allan's examples of those things increased in the "complete mention" are drawn from the Ten Commandments, i.e. those instructions considered essential (such as not committing adultery, not worshipping idols); as opposed to traditional religious law based instructions (such as circumcision or tithing.
At the Cross, the Grace given through the sacrifice of Christ filtered off the shackles of Mosaic law. It would therefore be reasonable to assess whether tithing made it through the filter, or was it left dumped at the foot of the Cross, with other legalistic and religious burdens. For this, I draw on Allan's argument that the interpretation given by Jesus and the Apostles should give us correct and indisputable instruction (I fall short of using the word "infallible" reserving that only for Christ Himself).
Here it is not unreasonable to draw on Pauls's teaching in 2 Corinthians. In particular, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7b "Let each one do (give) as he has purposed in his heart". Reading this in context of the New Covenant, and all the other passages that refer to giving, we cannot escape the fact that that there in no NT precedent set for a ten per cent tithe.
Hebrews is the one NT book to make direct reference to tithing yet still makes no inference or instruction that we are to continue this practice. Reading Hebrews 7 and 8, it makes specific reference to the new Covenant of Grace and the doing away with the old. In particular, read Hebrews 7:18 where it speaks, with direct reference to the Priesthood and the act of tithing, of the "annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness".
In conclusion, there is no NT command (or expectation, inferred or otherwise) to tithe. To try and rationalise otherwise is contrary to the NT covenant and to its interpretation by the Apostles. Instead, the NT clearly places the emphasis on giving freely, as is right in our heart, without obligation, expectation, or consequence.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 08:37
jules
hey Roger,
do you tithe?
by the way, loving this blog right now...
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 08:59
Roger
Thanks Jules, perhaps a personal disclaimer should be put here. Firstly, I am enjoying this dialogue and value Allan's time and effort he has put into this. Secondly, no I don't tithe, but I do GIVE freely, without expectation of reward or consequence if I don't. Thirdly, I do take issue with churches who use the OT Mosaic law to "encourage" giving, particularly the mis-use of Malachi 3-8. Fourthly, if individuals or churches choose to use a 10% figure as a benchmark for giving, then that is a sound principle, as long as it is only that - i.e. just a benchmark.
I look forward to reading more.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 09:11
chosen
one off topic question...was the apostles' interptretion of the OT really *infallible*?
how can that be - given they were men just like the rest of us [human for those who want to get all pc] and fallible in their understanding and knowledge...even peter spoke of some of the things paul wrote as being hard to understand...
is their interpretation infallible because jesus expounded the scriptures to them between his resurrection and ascension, or are they infallible because of their apostolic annointing [and if so, how come people can't be infallible now].....????
oh and jules...you don't happen to be a sydney ambo by any chance do you?
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 10:31
Paula
Nothing much to say except that I'm loving this "series" at the moment...good stuff to chew over while working!
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 10:46
Daniel
Chosen... "was the apostles' interptretion of the OT really *infallible*?"
Isn't all scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, then wouldn't the apostles interpretations of the OT be infallible?
I'm also interested.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 11:44
Luke
I think there's several issues on infaillibility.
1) Was the Apostles' interpretation infallible? I'd suggest not.
2) Even if 1) was the case, how do we know that our interpretation of the Apostles interpretation is not flawed?
3) Why are the Apostles infallible, and not anyone else?
4) What is the role of the wider church in the protection and propagation of 'truth'?
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 12:24
Allan Meyer
Blow it - I won't let that pass. OK, LF, show me how using this approach to hermeneutics gives us multiple wives and concubines in the NT church. Let's see your stuff.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 13:06
Luke
While you're here Allan, I'm interested to pursue your thinking on the Apostles' infallibility. I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the Bible. And I'd be interested to see how you would reconcile that view with Paul's statement that he opposed Peter to his face, "because he was clearly in the wrong". And that was on a matter of how the OT applied to new Christians!
So either Paul was wrong (nope, that can't be right), Peter was wrong (nope, can't be right), or the Bible has not recorded that neeting faithfully (nope, don't like that one either).
It seems that this is fairly crucial to the interpretive framework you've built, and upon which rest the rest of your expostulation, so I'd like to hear how you address this.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 13:18
Allan Meyer
Why do I consider the Apostolic perspective of OT scripture infallible? Toss this out the window and you can tear up your New Testament. The canon of the NT was established on the premise that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ the cornerstone. No book of the NT was embraced unless it was authored directly by one of the Apostles or overseen by one of the Apostles as with Luke, Acts and Mark. I believe the Bible. I've staked my life on its truth. If the Holy Spirit didn't manage to breathe on their interpretations and get it right, there is no Bible to bother with and we can all get off this blog and do something worthwhile.
We may not understand the arguments or implications of what the Apostles taught perfectly. That's a given. Hearing one another's viewpoints can really help all of us understand it better and more acurately.
I bother with this subject to the degree I do for two reasons: Firstly, I've had an encounter with God over the issue which has resulted in huge Kingdom effectiveness. Secondly, the divergent views held by Christians (and expressed by bloggers) goes beyond theory to practice and harms the body of Christ and its mission. For that we will all be held accountable. For that reason I'll argue my view with care and at the end I'll answer my critics respectfully.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 13:20
Allan Meyer
Roger - Your comment on the 10 Commandments is inaccurate, you missed my use of the Sabbath day. It didn't increase, it morphed.
You ask a correct question about Tithing and the law - did it pass through the Cross. But what is your answer? Again you move to 2 Cor - wrong territory mate. We'll talk more about this in the coming days.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 13:24
Luke
I think there's a difference then, between saying that the Apostles were infallible, and that the Bible is infallible. One I may be able to live with, but the other is pushing it, as I think my example showed.
And we still have the issue of the effectiveness of OUR interpretation.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 13:52
Lionfish
Feeling a little angry Allan?
Now, then you are just beginning to feel a little of what this is really about...
I reiterate, I will answer you at the end - so please be just a little patient.
And please do not call your critics 'puppies' if you wish to respect your critics. Respect is mutual.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:05
Daniel
I will change my previous remark to a statement.
I am sure that the apostles interpretation of the OT is infallible. It is our interpretation that is not.
2 Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness).
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:22
absolute truth
this is pretty good... with you so far on the infallability issue Allen, Luke your right on it when you say that our interpretation is the most likely culprit.
Understanding the OT through NT glasses i think can also work the other way. Reading the epistles esp with a decent understanding of the OT opens up the richness of the imagery and context. I'm no scholar in this but have found Walsh and Keesmat's 'Collosians Remixed' a great eyeopener.
LF - I'm the one whose supposed to annoy Allen so lay off and find some other pastor to annoy:-)
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:26
Luke
Gee fair go AT, who am I supposed to annoy then? :-P
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:28
Luke
Whoa, Daniel...that text you quoted is not an argument for the infallibility or absolute authority of scripture, in any way. Let's recognise that straightaway, or we're on VERY dodgy ground.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:29
Roger
Allan, a few points, if I may.
1. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "Morph"? Do you mean, "to undergo change" as in short for metamorphosis. Or do you mean to gain form as in Morphology?
2. I am not sure how you can quite justify 2 Corinthians as being wrong territory, unless you are being selective.
3. I too am concerned over this "infallibility of the Apostles" issue. Authoritative - yes. Let's keep them where Jesus left them.
4. Tone. Please do not pull theological rank on this one. Let's keep this respectful.
Roger
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:30
Daniel
Luke, what do you mean by "that text you quoted is not an argument for the infallibility or absolute authority of scripture"?
I agree that the quoted text should be recognised straight away. Can I ask... If the quoted text is to be believed, how can we judge an apostles interpretation of the OT as infallible?
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:41
Luke
Daniel,
The use of the word for 'god-breathed' is the same word that's used to describe Adam (the first man). Now, Adam was created by God, but he wasn't infallible. So if that word means that the Bible is infallible, one could also infer that Adam was too.
You can't stretch that scripture to mean infallibility.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:44
Daniel
Interesting. How though, if the scriptures were not infallible, how could they be useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness?
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 14:49
Luke
Daniel,
I'd love to go into it, however, this is rapidly going to go off-topic.... if you want to email me directly, that's be good, alternatively, we could ask the admin folk to set up another thread.
(you should be able to email me direct through the website here - click on my name, I think).
Briefly, I don't believe that infallibility, or indeed final authority, is really the answer to the question. Or if it is, then I don't think we're asking the right questions.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 15:10
Michael
AT - have you seen 'Kingdom Ethics' by Stassen and Gushee? Great stuff. They ground Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the OT, with great indications of the continuity between the two.
It is a little slippery to call the apostles the infallible interpreters of the OT since nowhere do they actually provide an interpretation in context of any OT book. What they do do is mine the OT using hermeneutic frameworks and exegetical techniques familiar in contemporary Judaism in order to present their understanding of Christ as the climax and fulfillment of God's redemptive activity in and through Israel. We could say, perhaps, that where they use the OT they do so under divine inspiration which at times extends the plain meaning of the OT passage used.
Inspiration is a faith issue - it cannot be proved, nor is it our job to do so. Having said that, concepts like infallibility can be useful in discussion, though only if they are carefully defined. I have a sense that sometimes the term is used to mean something akin to an absolute inerrancy of the text - something which can be shown to be an inadequate understanding of the biblical texts as we have them.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 15:21
Jamin
Oh this is really good stuff. I love it.
One thing does concern me though - this highly intellectual theological approach at trying to understand scripture really inadvertently says that a lay person has no hope of understanding the bible nor knowing if what his pastor is preaching is even remotely accurate.
When it gets so highly complicated as this issue is becoming, I then refer to the marbo principle - ie "the vibe of the thing". After all, not being a bible scholar and not knowing which bible scholar to listen to (other than the ones that I personally like what they are saying) what hope do I otherwise have?
I can make a conclusion like this - there is definetly a tithing 'vibe' in the bible. The is rumours of blessing and cursing associated with it. Extremely intelligent scholars disagree on the current application - so I am going to go with erring on the side of the vibe and tithe.
It's a little like the abortion issue in that both sides of the argument agree that once a foetus has become a human life then it needs to be protected. The great debate is about when that foetus becomes a human life. As there are many very intelligent arguments on both sides of the fence then clearly no-one can be completely confident about when life begins. Hence, my logic suggests that we should not do abortions - regardless of what side of the fence you are on because we cannot be sure. The only way to er is on the side of life and caution.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 16:37
Lobby
Jamin,
this isnt so much an intellectual exorcise, it is basically laying guidlines on how to read and interprate the bible.
people use big terms to hermanutics (Munster punn intended) but all it means is looking at what is written, and how i can apply it in my life today... (I think...
So when reading the bible it is good to know the background of the writer, who he is writing to, their background etc... basically, a verse cannot be interprated to mean something that it never meant. ie the "Jesus knocks on the door of your heart" verse, it was written to a church, yet evangelists use it to appeal to un believers... this would be an incorrect use of the verse... non the less many have entered teh kingdom of God through its use... work that out???
its really great to take the time to look at this stuff, because so much of what we believe is transferred unknowingly, and to actually realise why you believe what you believe is great
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 16:51
Jamin
Let's face it though - the average person does not have the intellectual capacity to sift through all of the scriptures and come to an intelligent and accurate doctrinal conclusion (a few bigs words in a row there - I'm doing well!) on most topics. Especially when it means that to get an accurate picture you need to have a understanding of the ancient culture that really can only be discovered through reading MUCH wider than the bible.
Hence, a Pastor stands up and says "my hermeneutical conclusion about tithing is that we should/shouldn't do it" then the average person has to take their word for it. They know they have buckley's chance at working it out themselves. Of course they can read other intelligent people's books and take THEIR words for it - but once again they are just trusting someone else's study.
You got to admit, its a tricky one.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 17:33
chosen
thanks allan for answering my question re: infallibility.
and guys...we asked allan to do this, so let's not attack until he has finished laying out his case, which he is doing [as far as i can see] in a methodical and well thought out way.
i think we all agree that this issue is one that we need to think about, examine, study, and understand given that it's such a pertinent issue in our churches and in the bible...
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 17:58
Lobby
Jammin,
i take your point, a good way to guard against just taking someone elses opinion is to gather many opinions... the other thing, i think Paul talks about it, when you do seek, God promises you will find him. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth... so again we need to use all we are given to find it.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 18:51
nilmot
Allen, you keep talking about people shooting their mouths off and jumping to conclusions with out giving this issue enough thought, I can only presume that you mean to infer that some of us are doing this and presumably you mean those of us who disagree with your opinion. I want to reiterate that on the contrary, it is because we have considered the "first mention" and "progressive mention" and "complete mention" that some of us have come to disagree with this teaching that is so popular in the Contemporary Church.
Now I have to say Allen that I feel that perhaps you are imposing too much of your own interpretation on this passage from Genesis rather than simply letting the text speak to us what the author intended. You are talking about it being "pregnant with the beginning of Biblical streams of endless dimensions." and "This is a simple sentence, but is has profound implications." It is important to realise that this is a historical narrative, it is descriptive not prescriptive. The text informs us that Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of a war that he has just been victorious in to Melchizedek, the priest and king of Salem. He also allowed the King of Sodom to have the other 90%. This passage gives no support whatsoever to the doctrine of Christian tithing. To suggest that this verse is pregnant with Biblical streams is really a subjective opinion. And I think Lionfish is right, using narratives to form doctrine can be a dodgy business.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 19:49
Allan Meyer
1. The Apostles were not infallible people. What I said was the Apostles are the infallible interpreters of the OT. When they quoted and interpreted OT passages in the light of the cross they got it right. They are the foundation on which the NT church is built.
2. Roger, I qualified my comment at the beginning regarding an appeal to authority. I know it sounds like an appeal to authority to say "I've had an encounter with God" on this issue and I agree its unfair to come across as "the authority". It doesn't make me right. But I have had an encounter with God on this issue - it moulded the behaviour of our church, influenced our values and goes to the core of why and how we have planted 4000 churches in 20 years. Doesn't make me right however. By "morph" I do mean to undergo change - to take on a different character than previously. I contend that the Sabbath morphs through the cross. It ceases to be the sign and seal of relationship with God but it does not cease to have implications and relevance for life.
3. LF - angry? Sometimes. I'm on holiday at Noosa and I find I'm spending more time thinking about this stream than my wife. Apologise for the Puppy.
4. Jamin - your reflections underline the importance of study. Not everything in the Bible unpacks easily or without effort. Like treasures, they have to be dug out.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 20:35
simple trust
Allan - Thanks for taking the time to present your thoughts and engage in the related discussion on this important topic. I believe that your investment of time will be very worthwhile and many people will benefit from these posts. I have been very encouraged by the discussion so far as it seems that not only have the posts and comments been well thought out and articulated but it seems there is a real willingness to listen to what each other has to say. It is also encouraging to see the commitment from all involved to submit their views to Gods word and take the time upfront to understand and apply basic hermeneutical principles (although I don't believe (Allan) you have yet responded to Lionfish's early request in the first instalment of this post in relation to his suggested hermeneutical principles - I believe these principles are worthy of a response and it would facilitate a strong foundation for this ongoing dialogue.)
I hope these posts do not distract you too much from your holiday in Noosa. I also hope that you will not only continue to share with us a thoughtful presentation on "a theology of tithes and offerings" but that you will also continue to honestly engage in the dialogue and listen to and consider the alternate views that are expressed. It would be great if all parties can approach this discussion with an open and humble heart and be willing to learn and have our opinions challenged without becoming defensive. These are important issues (money and the church, tithing, prosperity, accountability etc) and the open discussion of this nature is critical.
I pray these posts will continue in the same spirit as they have begun (open, honest and respectful) and that this topic of tithing will not just become a sacred cow to be defended.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 21:18
Lionfish
Jamin, Don't sell yourself short, go watch 'Lorenzo's Oil'. Whilst I have respect for qualified teachers including Michael and Allan, we all have a responsibility to nut these things out for ourselves, and test what they say, regardless of their reputation or credentials:
"Let me be blunt: If one of us--even if an angel from heaven!-were to preach something other than what we preached originally, let him be cursed. I said it once; I'll say it again: If anyone, regardless of reputation or credentials, preaches something other than what you received originally, let him be cursed". (Gal 1:8-9).
I firmly believe that the addition of any OT encumbrance to the FREEDOM of the Gospel is anathema, whether it be Sabbath, dietary requirements, tithe, circumcision, etc. The burden of law brings us back into bondage, guilt etc....Danger Will Robinson!
Personally I feel that these arguments and debates are possibly just growing pains. Generally speaking, the Contemporary Church is young, vibrant and energetic, which is their strength and their beauty. Though the mainline churches have had these types of arguments centuries ago to rid themselves of heresies. As I have said before both Churches could learn much from each other. It would be great to see the size, energy, front-stage excellence, music, socio-graphic variety of the Contemporary Church coupled with the theological integrity, transparency, back-stage service and missions, schools etc.
From what I understand there has been significant doctrinal change over the last 10 years, as Michael pointed out recently led by people like Phil. Perhaps there is still some way to go towards complete orthodoxy. Pain, before the gain. This is part of the growth process, it will hurt and it can only be gained by having blood underneath the fingernails through heated and frank discussion.
Nilmot: Good points re Abraham and narratives.
Allan: No problems, my sense of humour is oftimes dire (I was going to play with the fact that Abraham and Solomon had multiple wives and the NT says - "Husbands love your Wives (plural)" (Eph 5:25) Haw!, Haw! Haw!
Of course multiple concubines is thoroughly indefensible due to non mention in the NT ;-)
No idea you were on holiday with your wife, you deserve a break. I think with the intensity of this one, it might be good for us all.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 21:44
Cyril
What's the point Allan of trying to get people to practice something which the Apostles and the early church did not practice?
You know there is no record of tithing being practised in the 1st century churches, don't you? be honest now! (in 1st cent synagogues, yes)
Soooooo many directions about giving and never about tithing?
Why?
In the Kingdom giving is a living relational expression of love.
Tithing is non-relational. It speaks of separation from God, as all the OT types did. They continuously reminded people that their sin had separated them from God.
Posted: 21-Sep-2005 23:36
22nd September 2005Pippa
Jamin, while every believer does not have on hand an extensive library, dictionaries and 20 years preaching experience (or whatever). They do have access to someone who does - Holy Spirit. If a person sits down and Learns to listen (yes, they might have to learn to listen) to Holy Spirit they WILL get a download of interpretations that they did not expect.
It needs a close relationship between the believer and God. It needs a humbleness to ask. It needs a heart that is willing to listen, even when we don't understand. It needs a heart that is willing to question even God Himself.
We can do it in our own strength, and sometimes get there. But more often than not, you will get there quicker going to the person who inspired the words in the first place.
What we do need most of to do it is time. Take time out to find what you are looking for. At first it is hard work, but it will become more enjoyable. Take lots of notes. Write down questions that pop into your head to deal with at a later time. Don't be afraid to learn.
Have a minimum of two Bible translations and a regular dictionary on hand. Down the line it might help to have a Word Study(?) Book (it works like our regular dictionary with biblical terms and meanings), to understand the Jewish culture to deepen relevance. Check out your local Bible college library for resources, even if you are not a current student. You can at least look while there, even if you can't remove text books.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 06:06
Daniel
Luke, you asked if because God breathed into Adams nostrils, does that make Adam infallible? I believe that it did. Adam chose not to be infallible.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 08:34
Luke
Ok...but that's an interpretive spin you're putting on the text now.
And if Adam was infallible, why did he choose a fallible path?
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 09:41
23rd September 2005Theological Detectiv
great logic luke. your often incisive beyond your years young man. seriously
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 17:22
27th September 2005Luke
I know it's most likely a dead thread now, but Daniel, any response?
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 10:58
22nd September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #4
With Genesis 14:18-20 a stream of Biblical truth begins, in fact 5 streams flow from this one section of scripture; five first mentions in a single passage including the first mention of PRIESTHOOD and the first mention of TITHING.
The Priesthood we are introduced to is indicative of the Priesthood of Christ himself. The NT says so. So does the OT - Psalm 110.
The first time we meet a Priest is the first time Tithing takes place - a tenth of all Abraham's war booty is laid at the feet of Melchizadek. The Father of all them that believe gave the first tithe to the first Priest. The Father of all them that believe honoured the Priesthood of Christ with a tithe - that's not my interpretation, that's the interpretation of the book of Hebrews - in that act all the lesser Priesthoods that would follow tithed to the greatest Priesthood there will ever be as a mark of respect and to establish the ultimate nature of both tithing and the priesthood.
Why did Abraham do that? We don't know. The scripture doesn't say. Was he commanded to? It doesn't say. What we do know is that from the very beginning humanity had been instructed concerning the issue of offerings to God. Until the first priest came on the scene the way an offering was made to God was to burn it - to devote it to destruction. But the first time a Priest appears, the Tithe appears - something not devoted to God through destruction by burning, but devoted to God by presentation to the Representative of God. (I can almost hear the murmurs of disapproval down the modem by those who think they know where this is going - I'm setting up the Pastors of today as the Representatives of God to whom the tithe is now brought - WRONG. You'll have to wait to the end to see what the NT does with that, but I thought I'd just intersect that diversion before we wasted any time on it.)
There may have been an oral tradition about Tithing and its connection to Priesthood from the beginning to which Abraham responded on encountering Melchizadek. Pure speculation. Why did Abraham tithe? We don't know. Was it commanded? - it may have been but it isn't said to be so. It may have been an inspired moment on Abraham's behalf - it just seemed like a good idea at the time. We just don't know. I suspect it wasn't commanded - that it was a gut reaction to the moment that for some reason seemed to be the right thing to do - and it was the right thing to do as scripture unfolds, yet the perspective of his tithing being a response to an oral tradition from the beginning has something going for it. This is worth toying with some more, but we'll leave it at that for the moment.
This act of Tithing took place 400 years before the law. Tithing is not the creation of law, it is the honour attached to Priesthood.
Would this relationship between the first Tithe and the first Priest prove to be a principle or would it be anecdotal - just an isolated happening in a long stream of happenings? The answer to that question requires the consideration of Progressive Mentions of tithing and priesthood.
The progressive mention of Tithing however brings us to the covenant of Law under Moses. What unfolds is consistent with the principle inherent in the First Mention. The establishing of the Tithes and Offerings under the Law is linked directly to the establishing of the Priesthood under the law. The first mention develops into an insight to God's thinking about his representatives. I draw your attention to Numbers 18:21-24.
Num 18:20 And the LORD said to Aaron, "You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel.
Num 18:21 "To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting,
Num 18:22 so that the people of Israel do not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the people of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Num 18:24 For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance. Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel."
The establishing of the Priesthood under the law is linked to the establishing of Tithing under the Law.
Lest this section become tedious I will summarize some important issues about studying the Tithing issue in the OT.
The tithe spoken of in the passage above could be described as the "First" tithe. It was to be given by 11 tribes for the support of 1 tribe. This tithe was to provide God with one tribe devoted to His service. A "second" tithe was commanded on top of the first tithe, and this was to be set aside and used for the purpose of holidays. Israel was to devote a tithe of a year (5 weeks) in celebration in Jerusalem and to provide for the time off they were instructed to set aside a second tithe - still a good idea today if I do say so myself. A "third" tithe was also to be set aside - this tithe to be used for the poor, for the priesthood, for any act of kindness or mercy that would be consistent with the love of God toward the needy. If you don't know about these three tithes you will find yourself confused and confounded when reading some of the passages that use the word "tithe" AND jumping on the wrong passages of the NT when you come to look for the links after the cross.
The Progressive Mention of Tithing underscores the First Mention: Tithing relates to Priesthood. Under the law it paid for God's workforce. Two of the great revivals of the OT reveal the importance of this tithe to God's Kingdom. When this tithe was ignored or abandoned God's workforce left their calling and went and did other things. Twice in the OT revival in Israel required the revival of Tithing and the re-calling of Levites to their ministry.
Tithing is also called an Offering in Numbers 18. The first tithe is an offering brought to God for the purpose of the support of his workforce. The third tithe was an offering to God for all kinds of things, including meeting the needs of the poor. The Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon were built with free-will offerings that had nothing to do with the first tithe. More could be said to fill this out but this must suffice for the moment.
Summary: The first tithe was an offering to pay for the Priesthood, confirming the link established in the First Mention. Other offerings related to the poor, to buildings, to holidays. If you are going to find the NT links you need to know this was the OT context in which Jesus and the Apostles spoke.
Well, what does the NT do with all this? Focusing for a moment on the First Tithe:
Is it fulfilled at the cross and therefore ended?
Does it morph at the cross and become something different?
Does it increase at the cross and become more?
Does it continue unchanged into the NT community?
All of the above are possible since the NT writers do all these things with different elements of OT truth.
What does the NT say? Let's discuss this tomorrow.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 22-Sep-2005 03:00
9 comments Comments on this post...
22nd September 2005Frank
Allan,
I have enjoyed your thoughts very much on this topic... bring on the rest!!
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 06:20
simple trust
Allan, thanks for your fourth instalment on this issue. Although you have stated that you are NOT "setting up the Pastors of today as the Representatives of God to whom the tithe is now brought" you have established that in the OT "the first tithe was an offering to pay for the Priesthood". Are you in any way inferring that the priesthood of the OT has continued into the NT in the form of paid clergy/pastors and that an important reason behind the ongoing principle of tithing is so that these church leaders can be paid? Given some of your comments in this particular post, I think it may be important to address the issue of "the priesthood of all believers" cf "the office of the ministry - paid pastors" in relation to the issue of tithes and offerings at some point. It seems that a large part of most church budgets go towards staff (and buildings!!) and so I am wondering whether you will build further on this OT principle. Will eagerly await your further comments and analysis of this issue. I wonder whether my tithe is still valid if I give it directly to a struggling (poor) neighbour of mine or whether my first tithe must be given to the local church (to pay for the priesthood??) and then I am free to give a third tithe to my neighbour? Hope you are enjoying your holiday!!
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 09:39
Cyril
They didn't do it Allan!
Evidence? One, just one precedent?
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 18:08
Lionfish
I might be wrong, but I am wondering as to whether it is appropriate for the term 'filter' should be applied to the cross, as it implies that some of the 'Law' has passed through at Calvary. I understand that the Law was fulfilled, and the old covenant passed away and a completely new covenant established. It is not the Old Covenanting passing through or morphing into something else...the old covenant was terminated, made void and a completely new one established in its place.
The cross may better be described as a lens for viewing, through which one may see, contrast and better understand the infinite difference two, but nothing material passes through or continues.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 19:34
nilmot
If I may, I would like to give my own recap of the ground we have covered so far, I will endevour to leave out any interpretive spin.
Firstly it is Allen's contention that the OT law is important for Christians. However following the cross, the OT laws/truths can do one of four things, they can have increased importance, they can have diminushed importance, they can remain unchanged or they can morph. The purpose of this series is to find out what the NT authors did with the stream of truth regarding tithing.
As far as scriptural references to tithing we have looked at firstly Genesis 14. This passage tells us about an occasion when Lot had found himself in the middle of a war between several kings and was taken captive. Abraham got involved in this war to rescue his nephew. Abraham defeated the kings and retreived the stolen propery of Sodom and Gomorrah. Following this Abraham gave one tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek, the King and Priest of Salem. The King of Sodom offered what remained to Abraham, but Abraham refused and took nothing for himself only compensation for the men who fought with him. (It is perhaps a common misconception that Abraham regularly gave tithes to Melchizedek, but rather this was, as far as we know, a one off occurence and the tithe was not from Abrahams own possesions.)
Today we have considered the tithe that was instituted under the law given by Moses. There are several references to tithing in Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This tithe involved agricultural produce (not money), there were three different tithes. The purposes of the various tithes were to feed the Levites, also strangers, orphans, widows etc. Also the tithes were for festivals to be enjoyed by all.
Well, apparently tomorrow we will discover what the NT says about tithing.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 20:36
Allan Meyer
You guys got me into trouble and I'm not allowed to play with you every day. My wife sees me with my head in the Blog and she won't put up with it, so I'll post my posts and we'll discuss implications next week. We are on vacation and she expects me to give her my attention.
Good questions ST - I'll explain how I resolve those questions in the remaining posts, then we can argue the various opinions you guys hold.
I have not addressed the alternative hermeneutical principles because it will not be a short discussion and I've got a subject I want to get on the table. We can revisit the issue next week when we toss around alternative veiws to mine.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 20:50
Lionfish
Good round-up Nilmot, though Allan also did state that some Laws stopped as they were fulfilled at the Cross eg. sacrificing animals. Though Allan does say others morphed, increased, decreased etc, as you say...this is something that I am particulary uncomfortable with. (Any external perspectives from qualified theologians on offer out there?)
Yes, Alan, by all means spend time with your wife. this has given me a damned headache and got me into the dog-house as well.
Posted: 22-Sep-2005 21:15
23rd September 2005simple trust
Good comment LF about the cross being more of a lens than a filter. I believe God's word speaks of a new covenant which makes the first one "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13) rather than "filtering" the old covenant and allowing some parts to increase, decrease, morph or stop. eg in the sermon on the mount I wouldn't say that Jesus is "increasing" the law but "replacing" it with a new standard of living based on love and heart attitude rather than law.
Anyway, hope everyone has a great weekend and will look forward to the continuation of this discussion next week.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 09:25
23rd September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #5
The first mention of Tithing is made in the same passage as the first mention of Priesthood. The first tithe was an expression of honour to the first Priest. At its introduction Tithing and Priesthood are related.
Under Moses an inferior Priesthood was established. It was funded by the first of three tithes commanded for Israel. The first tithe was dedicated to the support of one tribe, paid for by 11 tribes, to provide God with a tribe dedicated to His service (Numbers 18:21-24). The second tithe was dedicated to holidays (Deut 14:22-27). The third tithe was dedicated to generosity to the needy, the poor, the priesthood - in fact any act of generosity consistent with God's compassion (Deut 14:28, 29). Commentators are divided on the question of whether this third tithe was an annual tithe collected every three years, or a tithe of the third year. Regardless, this tithe was dedicated to acts of generosity but could also be applied as a gift to the Priesthood, adding to the first Tithe.
As well as these three tithes a whole range of offerings and sacrifices were established under the law, some of which also benefited the Priesthood in that portions of those offerings could be used by the Priest.
Since God's workforce was paid for by the first tithe, whenever this tithe fell into disregard the priesthood ceased to faithfully minister and returned to making their own living. Revival in Israel involved reviving the tithe and bringing their tithe into the storehouse so that the priests could be supported and return to their ministry. Two examples are the revival under Hezekiah (2 Chron 31:4-21) and the revival under Nehemiah (Neh 10:37, 38, and 12:44-47).
As we transition our reflections from the OT to the NT it is interesting to note that Jesus signalled changes prior to the cross that would be confirmed and strengthened by the Apostles after his cross and resurrection. Jesus took the seventh commandment and strengthened it in the under the new covenant, signalling the high priority of heart-deep moral purity in the Christian church. Jesus signalled the changing role of the Sabbath day prior to the cross on so many occasions, not only by his behaviour but explicitly - man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man. The Apostles would clarify and strengthen this new position after the cross and resurrection.
What did Jesus say about tithing? Would he signal the end of the Tithe with the coming of the new covenant? Would he signal that the tithe was finished, about to change, maybe increase since the benefits of the new covenant are so profound? His mention of tithing gives no hint of a coming change: Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
These you ought to have done without neglecting the others - Jesus did not signal a coming change. Perhaps the Apostles would.
The Apostolic insight to the nature and purpose of tithing is addressed in a lengthy argument by Paul in 1 Cor 9. The strength of the argument is increased by its context. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is explaining the unusual way Christians express their liberty - by refraining from exercising their rights where the exercise of those rights will damage the eternal destiny of others. The logic of chapter 9 will be to give an object lesson to the principle. Paul will now use himself as exhibit A in terms of an example where a believer had a right, but declined to exercise it because exercising his right would have damaged his ability to preach Christ and lead the Corinthians to faith.
What RIGHT is he speaking of? What RIGHT did Paul the Apostle sacrifice in order to bring the gospel to Corinth? It was his RIGHT of financial support - his share of the tithes. Watch his argument unfold:
1Co 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
1Co 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
1Co 9:3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
1Co 9:4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
1Co 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1Co 9:6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
1Co 9:7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
1Co 9:8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
We are getting near the punch-line folks. As Paul develops firstly the FACT that he had a right of support he puts a series of complimentary arguments regarding his right of support - he is an Apostle, other Apostles have similar rights, soldiers have rights because of their service, farmers have rights because of their service, but don't stop there folks - THE LAW SAYS THE SAME THING.
We'll come back in a few days time and re-visit the implications of the use of the agricultural metaphor - the ox that treads out the grain - but note this well - the Apostle Paul as a New Testament writer is an infallible interpreter of the appropriate application of OT scriptures - and on this issue he goes back to the law and he is about to draw it through the cross and into the New Testament community. Paul continues:
1Co 9:10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
1Co 9:12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
1Co 9:13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
Verse 12, Paul says "if others share this rightful claim on you ...." What rightful claim would that be? Remember folks, he is speaking to a New Testament church after the cross and resurrection of Jesus. He is underlining the point that he had a RIGHT OF SUPPORT and now he shows where that right of support comes from "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple ..." He goes right back to Numbers 18 as his source of authority. This is a direct quote from Numbers 18, the establishing of the Tithe as support for those who were called to serve as God's employees. He draws on an OT principle to demonstrate his right of support - and it was this right he chose NOT to exercise in order to preach to them free of charge.
But wait, Paul is not finished:
1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
"In the same way" - the word in the Greek text means "by the same principle."
"By the same principle" - what principle? - the principle of Numbers 18, the setting aside of the tithe for the support of God's work force - THAT principle.
And what did the Lord have to say about that principle? Did the Lord say "it's the New Covenant now, no more tithing guys, just do the best you can."? Did the Lord say "the cross paid all the debts guys, so no tithing from this time forward"?. Did the Lord say "New Covenant is so good I'm upping the tithe"?
No - according to the Apostle Paul, when it comes to supporting the New Testament Workforce the Lord has COMMANDED the use of the same principle that's applied ever since a Priest first appeared to Abraham, the same principle that applied for the support and financing of the OT priesthood. That's the principle we're going to apply when it comes to the support of those who preach the gospel: a command of the Lord to apply the same OT principle that supplied a living to the Levites in the support of the NT labourers.
Tomorrow: Where does 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 fit in the picture? It fits in the picture as an extension of the progressive mentions of giving in the OT. When we follow the dotted lines its wonderful how things fit together.
Conclusion:
The Apostle Paul taught that the pattern which had been established under the Old Covenant for the support of the Levitical Priesthood was to be continued under the New Covenant, so that those whom Christ should call to live as ministers of His gospel should be supported in the same way as had the Levites. Read again Numbers 18: 20-24 to remind yourself of how those workers were supported.
We have the privilege of tithing under grace - as loving givers we give because it pleases us to fulfil the will of God for his church.
When the church rejects or neglects the biblical principle of tithing unto the great High Priest, Jesus Christ, the same thing happens as happened under the Law - the ministry of the gospel suffers and the ministries that should have been sent into the world are not sent. The revival of the church is also a call for a revival of tithing unto the Lord that His labourers might be sent out into every part of the earth.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 23-Sep-2005 03:00
31 comments Comments on this post...
23rd September 2005micmac
Well done Al. You've earned a Latte & a walk along the beach. Tell Helen she can have you for the whole day now
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 07:45
Roger
Allan, your wife is right - she deserves your attention more than we do. Enjoy your break.
In the meantime, here is where I am at:
Allan Meyer, "We have the privilege of tithing under grace - as loving givers we give because it pleases us to fulfil the will of God for his church".
I can't help thinking this is about semantics. Substitute "tithing" with "giving", and this is consistent with the model for giving detailed in 2 Corinthians. It's certainly consistent with my own interpretation. The only issue that remains for me is the mis-use of OT tithing law to "encourage" ( read "coerce") congregations to tithe as an obligation, rather than to give for the love of God and the support of His church.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 07:54
Allan Meyer
Roger, don't tell Helen but I've snuck out for a look. We aren't far apart, but I've got a few more posts to add. In the next few I'll explain why I think it MAY be more than semantics. Not necessarily so, but in too many church situations it is more than semantics. I think the PRINICIPLE is what we need to embrace. At the end of the day it made a huge difference in the behaviour of our church, and its made a huge difference in the behaviour of churches that have embraced the idea. I really look forward to discussing the pros and cons once all the issues are on the table.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 08:05
From afar
Really enjoying your study of this issue, especially the blog #2 where you discussed how the NT interpretes the various laws in the OT (ie, increases, diminishes in importance or terminates at the cross)
I look forward to reading future blogs.
Thank you!!
God bless
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 08:48
Daniel
Allan,
You said in a comment on yesterdays post "... I have had an encounter with God on this issue - it moulded the behaviour of our church, influenced our values and goes to the core of why and how we have planted 4000 churches in 20 years."
It is of great interest to me to know how an Australian church plants 4000 other churches in 20 years. If you would not mind, I would love for you to share more on this in the future.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 08:53
Lionfish
I concur with Roger. The appeal to the external OT Law rather than an 'inside-out' heart response (as is the obvious sentiment throughout the NT), to turbo-charge fund-raising may have "made a huge difference in the behaviour of churches that have embraced the idea"...but as in the use of external substances to enhance performance in sport, it does not make it right. Mainline Churches, who equally rely on funding, tend to resist this temptation.
The end should not justify the means.
Looking forward to the next installment.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 09:58
Richard
I generally agree with the comments so far. However, I believe what Allan has done is to separate the Biblical Principle from its practical outworking in Church life today.
I agree whole-heartedly that the tithe is a command for the Christian today and that it is soley for the support of kingdom workers.
Now, as to how churches implement this command is another matter. I think that by using the tithe as an excuse to manipulate beleivers out of their money is sinful. I've been in both types of churches, and have always given my tithe out of my relationship to God, not because of manipulative techniques. In the church where this sometimes occurs I feel that the leadership has nullified the blessing that could have come.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 10:30
Lobby
Allan,
i hope that at the end of it all, you share what it was that happened in your encounter with God. IE what it was that was a "Sunrise" experience to you. (that is you feel free to share that sort of thing?)
anyhow, this has been great so far, thanks for explaining it all out easily.
Richard,
it is more often that not that a senior pastor (or a board, depending on the church style) that sets the tone for most things within the church, I guess this is where we as layity need to show grace, in that this may be an area that the pastor needs to grow in. as per allan's story, i dont know how long he was pastoring before he received this revelation, which has obviously deeply effected him and his ministry.
I understand frustration etc to do with pastors shortcomings, but there is the Log in our own personalities that maybe we should focus on. all pastors i have sat under have had shortcomings, in one area or another, but their redeeming qualities far outweighed the shortcomings.
So you could say that i am from the "Go Pastors" camp... =)
they do an amazing job with so little most of the time. and all because they have a heart for God and People. People who go into the ministry to make money usually end up reformed or down the road.
BTW, I sense a real excitement at this. some solid background stuff on tithing... AWESOME!
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 11:30
kazza
Just my 2 cents worth to the debate (I''m new and haven't read every entry). At our church on Sunday someone spoke on how God commands us to tithe for our own good, so we remember to put Him first. Sorry I can't remember the verse reference. I'm happy to tithe for this reason, but am seeking ways to be more generous than simply 10%.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 11:30
Richard
Lobby - agree 100%.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 11:51
Cyril
1) Tithing is mentioned nine times in the New Testament
2) Three times speak of the need of the Jews, who were at that time by the will of God under the Law, to keep the Law
3) The other six times are in a passage about an Old Testament incident of giving and establish nothing at all about New Covenant giving
If we look at the many passages that teach specifically about giving under the New Covenant and compare them with the Old Covenant we will find three outstanding features.
1) Nowhere is tithing even mentioned. It is TOTALLY ABSENT. It should be noted that in 2 Cor alone, we are talking about two whole chapters 8 & 9, and there is at least another forty New Testament passages where there is ample opportunity for tithing to be mentioned.
2) There is an absence of rebuke for non-payment. In the Old Testament it was carefully and powerfully rebuked as we have seen in Malachi, but consider too Nehemiah
Nehemiah 13:10 And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given [them]: for the Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field.
Nehemiah 13:11 Then contended I with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? And I gathered them together, and set them in their place.
Nehemiah 13:12 Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil unto the treasuries.
3) New Covenant behaviour. Not only is tithing absent from New Covenant teaching, but it is totally absent from the descriptions of how the Early Church gave, even though that is described plainly. ( Acts 2: 45, 4: 34 - 37, 5: 1 - 11, 6: 1 - 6, 20: 33 - 35, 24: 17).
Surely if tithing is supposed to be the central means of funding the Lords work , as is often taught nowadays, we can expect to find some mention of payment or non- payment in the early church, but there is none.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 12:38
simple trust
I agree that 1 Corinthians 9 presents a case that those who preach/proclaim the gospel (to those who have not yet heard and/or responded to this message?) have a right to receive their living from the gospel. I am not convinced that in the absence of other passages which directly support the requirement to tithe in the NT that this is a strong argument to advocate the continued law of tithing into the NT church. The emphasis of this passage is on the rights of the Apostle to be paid for his work, not on the requirements of the believer to tithe their income. I believe verse 14 could also be interpreted to imply the following:
In the same way as the Levites were paid from the tithes under OT law, apostles in the NT have a right to be paid from the gifts/offerings of the NT church (see 2 Cor 8,9.) Maybe "the principle" being focussed on here is the "right of support" rather than the "law of 10%"?
Generous giving of our time, gifts, money and possessions to further the kingdom of God ought to be encouraged. "Each person should give what they have decided in their heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:7). Anything which brings us back under a law which states "this is what we MUST do as Christians" should be discouraged. Anything which looks like it is starting to coerce or control the people of God ought to be discouraged.
I too am interested in finding out further about your encounter with God on this issue Allan - not as a basis for your stance but just as an encouragement to us. I appreciate the fact that you haven't introduced your experiences in any detail into this conversation until we have had a chance to explore this issue from a biblical perspective. Maybe you can share this encounter as a separate post later next week.
I would also like to re-iterate Daniel's request from an earlier post: "It is of great interest to me to know how an Australian church plants 4000 other churches in 20 years. If you would not mind, I would love for you to share more on this in the future."
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 13:32
going
Hi Kazza,
welcome... is it Mal 3:10 ???
"Bring all the tithes (the whole tenth of your income) into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me by it, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." since Malachi is the last book of the OT, (400 years before Christ ???) pretty good chance he was speaking to us in the New Covenant ...
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 16:52
Lionfish
No, Going, he was not.
Malachi was speaking to the unregerate people of Israel living under a theocracy. Be diligent and raed any commentary. :-)
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 18:05
Theological Detectiv
There is an obvious disjunction in the Scripture between the Old Covenant period and the New Covenant Period. I'm not referring to the division between Malachi and Matthew. That's merely a textual division. Jesus' entire life was lived under an Old covenant system even though the events of His life are recorded in the New Testament. Jesus initiated the New Covenant at the end of His life at the Last Supper, but it wasn't until Pentecost that it began in force. The theological disjunction, then, is pre-Pentecost and post-Pentecost, not Old and New Testament.
This doesn't justify throwing out the entire Old Testament. Rather, it informs our hermeneutic so that when we look at the Scripture we have to ask if our interpretation needs to take this disjunction into consideration. Are there some teachings, precepts, or promises that are strictly Old Covenant--meant for pre-Pentecost Israel--and are not meant to be directly applied to the Church today?
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 18:45
Art Vanderlay
The church started
1) filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4
2) Gospel Preached What shall we do? Repent and be baptised (for forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit promised) Acts 2:38
3) Large numbers of people saved Acts 2:41
4) Continued in TITHING ah no a) apostles doctrine (that must be the hidden code word for tithing" b) fellowship
c) the breaking of bread d) prayers Acts 2:42
5) Signs and Wonders through the apostles Acts 2:43
6) Believers sold possesions, goods, lands, houses and divided them as anyone had need Acts 2:45 4:34
7) Continued daily in one accord (temple and houses) Acts 2:46
8) Disciples multiplied,complaints that widows were neglected in DAILY distribution. so seven appointed to serve tables. Acts 6:3
9) Gospel preached to Gentiles Acts 11:18
10) Circumcision of Gentiles debate Acts 15
11) "You must be circumsised and keep the law"
Apostles reply "we gave NO such commandment" Acts:15:24
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things a) abstain from things offered to idols b) from things strangled c) sexual immorality and d) TITHING actually NO
Then went through the cities and repeated the above to the churches.
Believers who had shared with those who did not. Poor people were not giving but receiving. People gave everything but were they encouraged to do this or was it a result of spontaneous cheerful giving?
The church encourages people to give to the church but does the church encourage people who are poor to come to the front and receive from the money just received?
What do we spend the most money on-
meeting the needs of the poor, orphans and widows
or ?????
Jesus commanded us to Love one another John 15:17
If I meet someone poor in the church I'm most likely to give them my tithe (or more) cause I know that most likely the church wont help them and I'm the one who is supposed to meet the need.
I have never heard any pastor encourage people to do this even on a one off (not regular) basis!
Why not ? because of a) obeying God in collecting tithe or b) fear and/or greed.
I know that all the money was laid at the apostles feet and then distributed and I know that a lot of great things are done to feed the poor and reach the community.
I know that Christians (including the poor ones) should be taught that God has set the example for us by giving His Son and we should give also.
The worker is worthy of his wages, I dont care if Phil is on $250,000 a year I wouldn't want his job for a million. It is a very difficult life for anyone and I take my hat off to them all.
Lets not start at 10% or stop at 10% let us lay down our lives including our cash and show the world that Jesus is who He said He was.
PS All the best Allan - you are a great bloke and preacher.
I know Phil loves to throw the 6000 years at you and I have heard you declare that Phil doesn't believe in the Bible. I think you should start a new topic on Creation/Genesis and the age of the Earth.
Phil will have to explain how we can have millions of years of death before Adam's sin and he will throw that million years of light from stars etc. As I tell my atheist friends when we debate that its a "contact sport" and we can all shake hands at the end.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 19:28
nilmot
Allen, you have spoken much about Hermaneutics, but I am wondering if you need to give more attention to Exegesis, because it seems to me that you are pulling scriptures well out of their context to make them teach things they never intended to teach. The first example of this today I feel is Matt 23:23. The first thing we need to do is consider who Jesus is speaking to and what is the point he was trying to make. Was Jesus preaching about tithing here? No, Jesus was talking to the Pharisses about the more important things in the LAW and it was NOT tithing! (does anyone else see the irony here) Jesus does tell the Pharrisees that they should not have neglected tithing. Well of course they should not have, they were Jews who were still obliged to keep the Mosaic law. This situation has nothing to so with giving in the NT church.
It would also be a long bow to draw, to say that 1 Corinthians 9 is an Apostolic sanction of tithing in the Church. Firstly what is the point that Paul is making in this passage? Well in Paul's words (1 Cor 9:3) "This is my defense to those who examine me." Paul is answering his critics. He is informing them that although he had a moral right to accept financial support from them, he did NOT avail him self of this right. He appeals to several examples to prove that he did in fact have this right, yet choose not to excercise it. He talks about oxen, soldiers, farmers and Levites. Oxen get to eat the grain, the soldier is compensated for his efforts, the farmer eats of his crop and drinks of the milk and those who serve in the temple eat food from the temple. The point is that the worker is worthy of his wages. No-where in this passage does Paul suggest that tithing, as established under the Old Covenant for the support of the Levitical Priesthood was to be continued under the New Covenant, nor does Paul suggest this in any other epistle.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 19:49
Theological Detectiv
the New Testament actually does teach the obligation of tithing. In Matthew 23:23 Jesus says, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you tithe mint, dill, and cumin and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness. But these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."
This seems to be a clear statement from Jesus that justice, mercy, faithfulness and tithing are all to be practiced by believers. This amounts to a direct command by Jesus to the church to tithe.
A closer look shows this won't work, though. Jesus' remarks occur before Pentecost. He was simply reinforcing the teaching of the Mosaic Law already incumbent on the Jews in virtue of the fact that the Old Testament economy was still in force.
You'll notice that virtually all of Matthew 23 consists of the words of Jesus. He is giving a continuous discourse to the Jews, including His comments on tithing in verse 23. Look closely at the beginning of the chapter, at the beginning of this very same discourse. In verse 2 Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe ."
Now here's my question. When Jesus starts out a discourse giving the command that the listeners ought to do and observe everything that the scribes and Pharisees tell them by the authority of the "chair of Moses," is that command appropriate in a New Testament, post-Pentecostal context? The answer is clearly "no." We're not obliged to obey everything that the scribes and the Pharisees told the Jews to obey regarding the Law of Moses. We're in a new system.
If verses 2 and 3 don't apply to the New Testament Christian, then Verse 23, which makes the comment about tithing--another part of the Mosaic Law--seems to me to be suspect also. It's part of that larger discourse that is in an Old Testament context.
My point is that simply because Jesus commands tithing in this verse is not enough to show that Christians ought to tithe in the Church. One must give further New Testament justification, and none is forthcoming.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 20:34
Theological Detectiv
Further, it doesn't mean that nothing in the discourse is useful in New Testament sense. Certainly much of it is. But with regard to commands, it's appropriate to ask whether these commands are necessarily part of the Old Testament context and don't apply to the post-Pentecostal context. Jews were to tithe and be just, faithful and merciful. Christians are commanded in other contexts to be just, faithful and merciful, but are not similarly commanded to tithe.
The second reason I don't think tithing is a rule for the church is that, when you look closely at the tithe of the Hebrews, it wasn't just ten percent. It was closer to 30 percent, because the tithe was given at different times of the year and for different purposes, sometimes for the priests and sometimes for the government. Actually, the priesthood and the machinery of government were tightly interwoven. One could almost think of the tithe as a civic tax, to some degree. If the OT law on tithing applies with equal force to Gentile Christians as to Old Testament Jews, then multiple tithes are required, not just the one-time 10%.
Third, the New Covenant teaching of Paul appears to replace the Old Testament tithe with a different directive. The new ethic explicitly states that we are not under obligation or under compulsion , but rather to give cheerfully as we purpose in our own hearts. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says God loves a cheerful giver. God is able to prosper us, but we are to set aside what we determine in our own hearts to give.
Instead of a legal requirement to tithe , we are offered the opportunity to give . One can decide for himself whether he should give five percent, 10 percent, or 15 percent. It's up to him, according to whatever he has purposed in his own heart as God has prospered him.
To put it in a very straightforward way, there is no moral obligation in the New Testament to give ten percent of one's income regardless of the circumstances. That was a provision given to Israel under the theocracy that is not repeated in the New Testament itself but, in fact, is replaced by a new ethic that we see in 2 Corinthians, chapters 6\ 8.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 20:48
Cyril
Gal.5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Make your choice!
Spirit or law.
The non-relational Christian institutions have chosen law and not Spirit and have resorted to pushing the law to pursue their agendas, because they very well know that if they just told the congregation, "Give as you are led by the Holy Spirit, according to whats in your heart", then they would be broke in no time.
The early church prospered without tithing, yet today, what has become known as 'church' cannot exist without tithing, without the law's carrots and sticks.
Therefore, the law is used as a 'tool' to get things done which the Holy Spirit is not in. i.e. To force things through in the flesh, using either a carrot or stick, reward or guilt.
Like the Chinese brother,who,when visting America remarked, "Its amazing how much you people have achieved without God!"
The fact that the tithing technique 'works' only further cements its pragmatic proponents in their error.
Whether you are ofering a 'carrot' or a 'stick' to get people tithing, its still law and not Spirit.
With life in the Spirit He leads you in everything. You cant go back to a formula when He rules your life, and your wallet.
If you have to go back to the law to find out how much you should give, then you don't yet know Jesus as well as you should.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 20:59
Monkey Boy (not)
Monkey Boy (not)is back, just wanted to commend you all on a great discussion.It's a pleasure to read well thought out arguments.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 21:31
george costanza
what's my alter ego doing hanging around here?
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 22:27
going
LF,
have seen the principle being applied to a lot of godly people whose bank balance doesn't match up with their income due to the blessing they have received from the Lord on the promise of this scripture, as God is the same today, tommorow, His promises remain also... and I'm not that fussed on reading commentories ... 1 John 2:27 "But as for you, the anointing (the sacred appointment, the unction) which you received from Him abides (permanently) in you: (so) then you have no need that anyone should instruct you. But just as His anointing teaches you concerning everything and is true and is no falsehood, so you must abide in (live in, never depart from) Him (being rooted in Him, knit to Him), just as (His anointing) has taught you (to do)." Not that I don't learn from others but it is always filtered with my asking the Lord to cover with the blood of the Lamb any variance that might come through someone elses (even my own :o)!!!)... interpritation of the bible... other promises of the Holy Spirit being our teacher Isa 54:13, John 14:26 are some... Alan has learnt from the Lord in regards to this teaching ...
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 22:34
going
can I add a "yesterday" in amongst the today, tommorow ...
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 22:42
Z
I'd have to say this is one of the best discussions I have seen on this blog for a while. It's a hugely important subject and one that I have pondered for quite a while. Financing the church is very important (I believe everyone who has commented agrees with this) however the means by which this is achieved is of equal importance.
Tithing under grace is a new concept to me - in my mind the two concepts are opposed. I grew up hearing doctrines saying that if you didn't tithe you were robbing God, that if you didn't tithe you were under a curse etc. etc. I now see this type of message as a manipulation of scripture and certainly not in accordance with the free will, not under compulsion, type of giving the NT encourages. I've come to these conclusions by googling 'tithing' and have found a wealth of information on both sides of the arguement. Have a look at a site such as www.alphalink.com.au/~sanhub/tithing.htm to review a well researched paper on the subject.
I'm looking forward to the next instalment of this discussion.
Posted: 23-Sep-2005 23:34
24th September 2005the bird
I cannot believe the narrow mindedness and bias in this article.
I guess that's what comes if you are running a mega church, gotta keep the money coming itto keep that multi million dollar excuse for a temple running...
Just a few quick questions:
What did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? - his income? - NO He tithed the spoils of war out or respect so sorry - just because he happend to give Mel 10% does not mean we can apply it to the covenant tithing principle.
What were people called to tithe in the old testament? the fruit of the land - so if you were not a land owner what did you tithe????? could it be that god only wanted the rich to tithe??? -
how were livestock tithed??? they were herded under a rod and every tenth animal was selected - what happens if a person only owned 9 sheep???
The tithing principle of the OT was established to liberate people - firstly the levites who were doing a godly job secondly the poor who could look not look after themselves. If you have a closer look at OT tithing it is something that only affected the rich - if we applied the same principle of an agrarian society to our current context I wonder who would be callled to tithe - I don't think it would be the welfare recipients or probably even the wage earners.
Tithing in our context creates legalism, condemnation and hardship for lower income earners - it is very much contrary to the heart of God.
Unfortunatly to keep your corporation running - to keep your NT temple running you need finances, so why not expect those lower income earners to live lives of greater hardship because they have to supliment your CEO style life.
But wait, poverty is a sin isn't it, or at least not god's will for your life... tell that to the majority of the worlds christans who are living god anointed lives in third world coutries!!!!
We were never told by jesus or the apostles to build a temple, we were never called to have a preasthood - we are God's temple, we are God's priests not flashy pastors driving around in luxury cars gaining ceo style wages and condeming average people, by insisting on tithing, so this lifestyle can be sustained
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 12:53
nilmot
the bird, you are perhaps a tad more cynical about this than I am, but I can understand your cynicism, and you do make some good points.
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 14:10
25th September 2005Short arms Deep Pock
Hmmm...
I will say no more...
Posted: 25-Sep-2005 07:06
Lionfish
Going...please do your own homework and test whether what you are being taught aligns to scriptures. Its your own responsibility!...
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11"
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God...". 1 John 4:1
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you...etc, etc!"
Posted: 25-Sep-2005 12:07
30th September 2005going
LF
if the promises made to the Israelites aren't for us, then to what are we being grafted into ???? (Rom 11:17) I've had a lot of verses from the OT that impact my spirit, as almost a personal promise from the Lord, it is my inheritance as a child of God ....
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 22:55
going
and what is your method of testing the spirits ???? Do you have the mind of Christ that you, personally, without the Holy Spirits intervention, pick the right from the wrong ???? ".... and the blood of the Jesus Christ His Son cleanses (removes) us from all sin and guilt (keeps us cleansed from sin in all its forms and manifestations)." I always ask God to reveal His word to me by the power of the Holy Spirit, that the eyes of my heart would be open to a fullness of knowledge... we only know in part (1 Cor 13:12)... tell me, do you believe that we can have visions as John did in Revelations ??? The promise in Joel was that we would ... Is this also a promise relegated to the OT people or can we claim it as our own ??? Do you believe that God desires to be intimate enough with us that we would hear and obey His voice as clearly as they did in Acts (11:12, 9:10-18) ??? My God is a supernatural God, still wanting to do greater works than Jesus did through our faith and trust in Him...
sorry I am so late in replying... busy week.... so you probably won't even read it !!! Oh well...
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 23:24
24th September 2005Tithes & Offerings Discussion
An interesting week of discussion. I'm taking a break from this discussion over the weekend. Giving my wife my attention and have to barrack for Sydney in the Grand Final.
Next week I intend to conclude with the following posts:
The important passage of 2 Cor 8 and 9 and my view of where it fits in this discussion.
The significance of Luke 15 and 16 to this discussion.
My encounter with God over the issue and its impact on the history of Careforce Church.
I will then attempt to answer objections and consider alternative views. Have a great weekend. Carna Swans.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 24-Sep-2005 02:00
6 comments Comments on this post...
24th September 2005nilmot
Enjoy your weekend Allan,
Go the Eagles!
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 06:01
Advertiser anonymous
And now for the winner of 2005 premiership club song:
We're the Eagles,the West Coast Eagles
And we're here to show you why
We're the big birds,kings of the big game
We're the Eagles,we're flying high!
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 06:33
Advertiser anonymous
i reckon Panda will win the norm smith medal. Purr might have a chance.
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 06:40
Advertiser anonymous
Dr Gallop has wagered with the New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma that if West Coast win, the team's flag will be flown on top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
But if the Swans win, their flag will be flown on top of WA's Parliament house.
Dr Gallop is in Melbourne for the game and says he is confident the Eagles can win.
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/050923/4/9utp.html
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 06:45
risque
The SWANS have the WA team outflanked and contained.
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 07:47
Roger
Thanks Allan, enjoy your weekend. Go The Crows! Oh no, that was last week. Go the Swans!
Posted: 24-Sep-2005 10:04
26th September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #6
Last week in one of the comments in the series on Tithes and Offerings one brave soul declared that there was not a single example of tithing in the NT church. Not one! This comment goes to the heart of our understanding of the nature of the New Testament and its purpose.
The gospel of Christ sprang out of Jewish roots - Paul says we were wild olive branches grafted in to a cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:13-24). That tree goes all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus Christ was a Jew, he was crucified in Jerusalem. The first church was a Jewish church, the greatest church planter of the first century was a Jew - the Apostle Paul. The gospel was first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. The early church did not have a cathartic experience on the day of Pentecost whereby they somehow cleansed themselves of their OT heritage and roots, handed out Gideon New Testaments and said "Well, boys, I guess everything we've ever known is out the window and counts for nothing. Let's start this thing from scratch. It's the beginning of the Church era - let's open our New Testaments to Romans 1 and find out where to go from here."
Why the sarcasm? - to make a point. There was no New Testament, only the Old Testament, the words of Jesus, and the presence of the Holy Spirit to lead them on. The Bible of the early church WAS the Old Testament. As decades rolled on an accumulation of gospels and letters with Apostolic approval were also being read as the Holy Spirit helped the Apostles understand piece by piece how to interpret the Old Testament in the light of the cross, filtering Old Testament ideas, prophecies, practices, etc into an increasingly clear fabric of New Testament doctrines and practices.
When you read a New Testament epistle you MUST consider context. Not just the context of the people to whom it was written, not just the context of a verse, or a passage - you have to consider the context of the church and put it in the context of the Bible itself. The New Testament was not written in a vacuum by people with no background. It was written by the original messengers, out of their 1500 years of scriptural background. The New Testament was not written in a vacuum to provide some kind of religious literature for a believing people who didn't have any literature. It was written to adjust the literature they already had. It does not attempt to teach everything you need to know as a Christian - it was written to fill gaps and provide a pair of glasses so that which had already been written could be applied to a people living under grace purchased by the cross.
When the claim is made "there's not a single example of a New Testament church that was tithing" it implies that unless the New Testament re-teaches all the insights on tithing it must have been left out. WRONG. Exactly the same mistake the homosexual lobby make when they say "trot out all the verses Jesus ever spoke against homosexuality. Jesus never spoke a single word against homosexuality, therefore it must be OK by Jesus." WRONG. When Jesus Christ affirmed the creation story of sex and marriage he reaffirmed every doctrine attached to it, including that of the call to sexual purity and the unacceptable nature of homosexuality. All he needed to do was add his postscript - it goes beyond the act to the heart. Purify your heart. He didn't have to go back and re-teach everything that would apply in the New Covenant.
The idea that suddenly all these Jewish churches, with all their background of tithes and offerings abandoned the practice instantaneously without a word from Jesus or the Apostles to do so is to turn the New Testament on its head. The counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is a demonstration of how long and how powerfully Jewish ideas prevailed in the early church UNTIL SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY PROCLAIMED A CHANGE, as James did with his proclamation and letter at the end of that council.
Paul taught both Jewish and Gentile believers from the Old Testament - it was the only Bible he had - and frequently drew aspects of the Old Testament law through the cross and applied it as good doctrine and practice in the New Testament church. He did exactly that in 1 Corinthians 9. Paul says the Lord had "commanded" that his workers were to be paid by the same principle that the Levites had been paid. By the way - when did the Lord command such a thing? It's not written in the gospels. Yet Paul says it was commanded by Christ. Either he had it by a personal revelation in much the same way as he explains in 1 Cor 11 insights the Lord had given him about the communion table, or it was a command that Christ spoke to his disciples which didn't get recorded in the Gospels. One way or another Paul tells us that the First Tithe is the subject of a command of Christ - "that's how my team is going to be supported in the New Covenant".
Paul was the most prolific church planter in the first century. He took that principle and applied it everywhere he went. No church in the New Testament tithed? Rubbish. It was a universal practice because of the Jewish roots of the church and the influence of the Apostle Paul in the early church.
Now to 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Again, this was not written in a vacuum. Paul was raised as a Jew under a system of Three Tithes and a multitude of offerings. It was how God's kingdom was financed and administered for 1500 years. Paul had already underlined the role of the First Tithe in 1 Corinthians 9 - it is for the support of those called to ministry in the New Testament church.
Under Israel's economy the First Tithe was never used for the poor. It was never used to build buildings. It was for the support of God's employees. The Second Tithe was for holidays, the Third Tithe was for the support of the needy, the poor, and even the priesthood if necessary.
I am not aware of any place in the NT that the issue of the Second Tithe is pursued. It's still a nice idea to put aside money every year to take a holiday and get refreshed in God. Maybe we could all go to Hillsong every year if we saved up.
However, the Third Tithe is most definitely pursued in the New Testament. The whole of the issue of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 is to do with the support of a group of suffering believers in Jerusalem. It is a Third Tithe issue. It has nothing to do with support of the ministry, planting churches, seeing the Kingdom go forward - it has to do with compassion for the poor. And here the principle of the Third Tithe DOES undergo a transformation. Paul takes the Third Tithe principle that Israel was familiar with and transforms it into a limitless call for compassion - Paul says this form of giving under the New Covenant is be done with liberality (8:2), according to ones ability (8:3), and at times of great need even beyond ones ability (8:3). When it comes to compassion for the poor and needy in the New Testament let there be no limit - give till your nose bleeds, but don't you confuse this giving with the issue of 1 Cor 9; they are not the same issue.
To take this passage of Paul's and try to make it THE teaching on New Testament giving is to, firstly, ignore his previous teaching in 1 Cor 9, secondly, ignore the context of the early church as a developing Olive Tree with roots going back 2,000 years to Abraham. These words were not spoken in a vacuum.
My conclusion:
1 Corinthians 9 records a COMMAND of Jesus Christ that his workers are to be supported by the same principle that supported the Levites. Tithing is a Kingdom principle both Old and New Testament. It is not for building buildings, nor for helping the widows and orphans. It is a tithe that belongs to the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who commanded that the principle stand in order that he might have a workforce to take the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth.
2 Corinthians 8 & 9 moves to a different issue - compassion and help for the needy. For this purpose all limits are removed. There is no Third Tithe in the New Covenant, only a cry for giving of the extravagant kind.
When these two forms of giving are confused the church is left rudderless in the face of the great commission. Believers are called to bring their first tithe and lay it at the feet of Jesus for his workforce. Confuse this tithe with the issue of New Testament offerings and no wonder the church never fulfills its commission. Christ's workforce is not up for grabs. His tithe is for his workers. You want to be compassionate to the poor - wonderful, but do it with your money, not with his. Christ already has a plan for his tithe.
If his people will honour him with the first tithe he will call men and women into the harvest. That's how a church in Mt. Evelyn, Victoria - not the largest church in Australia by any means - has managed to plant 4,000 churches in the past 20 years.
Kingdom principles work, but only if God's people know what they are and live them out.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 26-Sep-2005 03:00
40 comments Comments on this post...
26th September 2005simple trust
Allan's conclusion:
"1 Corinthians 9 records a COMMAND of Jesus Christ that his workers are to be supported by the same principle that supported the Levites. Tithing is a Kingdom principle both Old and New Testament."
I still believe you are drawing a long bow in using 1 Cor 9 as your basis under which Jesus COMMANDS tithing. This passage supports the principle that a worker is worthy of his wages but to draw any stong conclusions that this must be done via a tithing law is still on shaky ground.
I also believe that some tighter definitions may be helfpul at this point. What is a "kingdom principle" and what is a "NT law". In using the word principle are you stating that tithing is a helpful "guide" and that 10% is a good starting point but ultimately each person needs to "decide in their heart" what they should give? Or are you inferring that tithing really is a "law" which MUST be obeyed and can be broken with related consequences? Does the very use of the word "tithe" imply MUST be done as a REQUIREMENT of the LAW which has passed through into the NT church?
"2 Corinthians 8 & 9 moves to a different issue - compassion and help for the needy. For this purpose all limits are removed. There is no Third Tithe in the New Covenant, only a cry for giving of the extravagant kind."
I also think you are drawing a long bow to state the clear interpretation of this passage is that Paul is saying that you are to give cheerfully but only after you have first given your obligatory 10%. Many theologians have interpreted this passage to have a much wider application to a holistic application to giving rather than an "offering on top of a tithe" approach.
"Believers are called to bring their first tithe and lay it at the feet of Jesus for his workforce. Confuse this tithe with the issue of New Testament offerings and no wonder the church never fulfills its commission. Christ's workforce is not up for grabs. His tithe is for his workers. You want to be compassionate to the poor - wonderful, but do it with your money, not with his. Christ already has a plan for his tithe."
I thought that it was the responsibility of each one of us in the church to be a part of the fulfilment of the great commission. If the emphasis is on the people paying the employees of the church to do "the work" then no wonder the church never fulfills its commission. Rather than focussing on a shaky interpretation of 1 Cor 9 to justify an oblligatory tithe to pay "the clergy" to fulfil the great commission (when they are usually too busy keeping the institution operating anyway!?!) why not focus on the "priesthood of all believers" being empowered by spirit for this purpose - "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
I also believe there is a much stronger argument from the early church in Acts to state that "no-one considered any of his possessions were his own" as compared to the "tithe belonging to Christ" and the rest of our money belonging to us.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:14
Lobby
Allan,
WOW! As i have previously stated, I have never felt the need to challenge the tradition of tithing. from an early age my mum would make sure i knew that i needed to tithe my pocket money and before pocket money she would give me 20c to put in the offering (Which was a pretty big thing considering 20c to seven kids, whilst being a missionary was a lot of money, I'm sorry to all who dont like the tithing thing, but used tea bags were a reality from people just like you, imagine how much more impacting mum and dads ministry could have been if people had gotten hold of what God was doing and financed it properly, instead of used tea bags and holey 2nd hand clothes etc... it was like, we cant send them the good stuff, they're missionaries... gotta make sure they fit into the society they are going into... yeah... right!)(sorry memories sometimes take longer to heal that physical wounds eh?)
anyway. Allan, to have this layed out as you have is great! re-affirming and liberating!
Thank You!
I cant wait till many other churches catch this vision, 4000 churches in twenty years is great, but how about 100 aussie churches planting the same in the next 10 or so years? what impact would that creat in our neigbouring countries? communities? towns and cities?
BRING IT ON!
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:16
simple trust
Lobby,
I don't believe we should challenge the habit of giving. It is vitally important that we use our finances to advance the kingdom of God and to support the poor and needy....and this should be done generously and as a priority not just from what we have "left over". I would also go so far as to say that 10% is a good guide or starting point if you are not sure how much to give.
What should be challenged though is any "law" or approach which coerces, controls and places people under an obligation. It is the methods by which the church extracts money from it's people that need to come under the spotlight not the acts of people who give sacrificially and generously....for God loves a cheerful giver!
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:28
Lobby
Simple Trust,
If that is your interpretation, they why havent you sold everything and given it to the poor or live in a like minded community? Why arent you out there planting four thousand churches?
maybe there is a deeper problem here than your attitude/theology toward tithing?
maybe the church been decieved for two thousand years?
maybe we should return to the days of the inquisition? that would really do so much for the call to go into all the world? wouldnt it?
I have a cunning plan me lord... hmmm...
the wisdom of men is foolishness when compared to God...
I wouldnt be so quick to degrade a revelation from the Holy Spirit. Has your conclusion been through a revelation that can be backed by scripture(or vice versa), or is it an intelectual exorcise that makes sense if you put two and two together?
Just remember, God is not a mathematician... he put two and two together and walla... (in six days =) there was the universe... God takes what i give him (At the best trash) and adds his portion, and wow! there appears something beautiful?
God is bigger than our understanding and his hands are longer than our deep pockets, his purpose will be fullfilled, but how much more fun, exitement and fullfillment would we have if we choose to jump right into the middle of his purpose?
I'm Jumping in... come along for the ride of your life! =)
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:30
simple trust
Lobby,
I do not consider any of my possessions to be my own but aim to be the best steward I can. To sell all my possessions at the moment would not be good stewardship as I also have a wife and three children to provide for. What I do welcome though is continual challenging and encouragement from within the community for each of us to use our time, possessions and energy in ways that are consistent with scripture and bring glory to God. It is easy for us to become complacent and comfortable and so I believe that it is helpful for us to keep challenging each other in these areas in a spirit of love.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:39
Lionfish
Allen,
Trust you enjoyed the weekend.
The SDA's argue the same thing about the Sabbath, that beacusae there was no explicit announcement that it was abolished, it still stands.
The Sabbath, being part of the decalogue is much higher on the OT Law "food chain" than the Civil of Tithing! Its reintrodcution was based on this argument by Ellen G White and others coupled with divine revelation.
Dont bring us back under Law.
More tommorrow
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 09:40
Me Again
According to Malachi, the purpose of the tithe is that there may be food in His storehouse. What is the reason people leave church? I wasnt getting fed, they werent meeting my needs.
Seems to me we need to get back to filling the storehouse so there's something there to feed people and meet their needs.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 11:04
The Bird
Thanks "simple Trust" for saying what my sinecism wont let me (is SINecism a sin?).
If tithing has continued from old testament to new testament then why arn't we tithing to the levites now... Oh wait they were Old Testament Covenant priests... so why not pay the tithe to New covenant priests??? - oh yeah! there are none, or more specifically there are heaps are we not a priesthood of believers?
I think it was constantine who decided the church needed priests, and somewhere a long the line a dude came along and said - hey wait a minute we don't need priests, we can go to God directly through Jesus... Unfortunatly somewhere along the way pastors became the new priests... Forget about the tithing principle in the NT, What does the bible have to say about pastors??? - from my reading it is only mentioned once, and even then there is no real reference to what there role is- it certainly does not say that they should be paid full time neo-priests... there is a lot of difference between the apostles and a pastor!! and I'm sure Paul didnt do his missionary trips in a BMW!!!
The church should give and give generously, give till it hurts, but not to pastors and 'fat baby' oversized churches, there is too much need in the world!!!
As for me I would prefer to live in poverty celebrating Jesus with my brothers and sisters in the third world (even if that means using second hand teabags) than trying to squeeze through the eye of the needle, and I'm a lot smaller than your average camel!
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 12:18
Roger
Allan
I approached this discussion with an open mind. I have read through your series on NT tithing and have tried to reconcile the development of your case right through to the conclusion above. You have presented a convincing argument but, in itself, it is not a sound progression of logic and it has too many gaps in the linking principles to be watertight. If I had the time and inclination (unfortunately, I have neither at the moment) I could build an equally convincing case against tithing. We would then have two opposing convincing cases and would be no further forward.
Whilst I am of the strong opinion that we have a responsibility to support our pastors and the ministry of the church, I hold the view that careful interpretation of scripture (in its entirety) reveals no case for insistence of a tithing structure that is applicable today.
Discussions based on first, second, and third tithes rely on an understanding of Judaism before Christ, and of the system of governance and rule that was in place at the time. There is more to this than just the church, just as there is more than just the church in today's system of governance and rule. It is therefore a misrepresentation to bring it into the NT church as a required system of support and finance.
I accept the fact that your church has achieved some great things over the last twenty years and I applaud your leadership role in that. If your church members have embraced freely a tithing model for financial support, and the church has not misused the Word of God in obtaining finance, then I think that is fantastic. However, this does not validate any scriptural argument in favour of tithing.
I don't expect to comment further on this topic apart from to wish you well with your continuing ministry. If you want to enlarge on some of the things you are doing as a church in the mission field then I would welcome the opportunity to read about it on this blog.
Thank you for your input and also my appreciation goes to your wife for allowing you out to play.
Roger
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 12:58
Lobby
Simple trust.
sorry i did prob get a little personal and didnt need to.
Bird,
fat baby? BMW? oversized churches... ?
Hmmm...
I can only vouch for the churches i have been activly involved with.
my first, a church of Christ in Kalgoorlie, in comparrison to other churches of Christ, very wealthy and viabrant for the number of attendees. this could have been a demographic reason, but it wasnt. Most people had grabbed hold of tithing and sacrificial giving, which meant that a small church of 120 members, could fully support many ministries in india and sri lanka, paying for land and buildings so that churches could be established, being able to send a team once a year to encourage and build into the people. i didnt know any fat babys, and no one drove a BMW unless it was 20 or more years old. and 120 is not oversized?
Riverview on the other hand, there are some BMW's in the carpark, but i think the pastors drive falcons or commodores and they are leased, ie they get a discounted lease rate, thus they are really no better off than joe the plummer, except the govt give them a few breaks. the income at riverview is no great bankers dream. but what the board and exec pastors do with it is amazing. they manage to not just run the church, but to pay all their staff (Who if you talk to them, are by no means overpaid and work many more hours than the 40 required of them) keep the building well, support outreaches, support international child organsisations etc we also manage to transmitt a great TV program into 60 or so countries, without asking for those watching for money?? etc etc... no one is getting fat or rich by working at or for riverview. Any pastors who have made good money have done so in side ventures by wrinting books or having other business interests. (Could this be reflective of what Allan said about when the tithe was neglected the priesthood went to other forms of employment for income? just a thought, should our pastor have to resort to such way of making income, unless they are directly involved in church life and the pastoring of the congrgation? hmmm)
RV have a good reputation of making every cent given go the extra mile when it comes to value added to the church. I am also unaware of any other pastor being so rich that they can afford BMWs unless they have been extrememly vigelent with their incomes, as anyone else in society has to be to be able to drive a BMW, or win lotto i suppose?
you say the church should give generously till it hurts... i agree, but do we do it? i dont see many hurting people around because they gave to the Lords work, most of them are hurting cause the gave it to the casino or the horses or have been ripped orf...
I guess you could say, i dont understand your perspective? I cant find why you would look at tithing in the way you do? to me there is no logic in the arguement against it when it is blatently practiced throughout the whole bible, and lets face it... we are living the extended version of acts... continuing the work of God. i know that doesnt mean we will all believe the same things on periferal matters and some would argue this is one of those, but i really dont think it is, as Allan has stated, his church grabbing hold of this issue and running with it has produced fruit that is quiet mind boggling... yet Allan hasnt even gone there... "you shall know them by their fruit" and yet you guys are like crows, picking away at the fruit with gay abondon...
so i will say it for Allan. where is the fruit of your theology in this area? where are your changed lives and planted churches and poor helped, people set free? where?
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 13:21
going
The church in Acts 2 sounds pretty good, filled with awe, sharing with each other as needs arose, gladness and joy, sharing meals. I remember hearing Mike O'Neil preach on this at Riverview a few years back... sounds good... I think each person should do what the Lord calls them to do, if you have peace about what you are doing then it is the fruit of your righteousness in this area (Heb 12:11b " .. but afterwards it yields a peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (a harvest of fruit which consists in righteousness - in conformity to Gods will in purpose, thought, and action, resulting in right living and right standing with God)." If you don't have peace and even the mention of tithing sets you on edge and you lose your peace over it (Isa 26:3-4) then it might be time to soften your heart and re-examine your mindsets ...
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 15:13
going
aw heck... the verse I was really looking for was "The fruit of righteousness is peace and the effect of righteousness is quiteness and confidence forever" I quote it all the time when I lose my peace and ask God for His righteousness to prevail not mine ... but do you think I can find it today ???? must be Monday :o)
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 15:23
Theological Detectiv
Lobby
you seem to think that money is really going to help God's work to the point that money is the answer (which is not what we are debating). I have problems with this due to the deceptive nature of money and our trust in it.
However, we are not talking about what can be done with alot of money but whether it is a command of God for the NT church or not.
the New Covenant teaching of Paul appears to replace the Old Testament tithe with a different directive. The new ethic explicitly states that we are not under obligation or under compulsion , but rather to give cheerfully as we purpose in our own hearts. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says God loves a cheerful giver. God is able to prosper us, but we are to set aside what we determine in our own hearts to give.
Instead of a legal requirement to tithe , we are offered the opportunity to give . One can decide for himself whether he should give five percent, 10 percent, or 15 percent. It's up to him, according to whatever he has purposed in his own heart as God has prospered him.
The clear intention of the text is obvious. Perspecuity comes to mind. The text is obvious in its intention. I would regard the re-interpreting of this scripture into something other than that which it obviously says as verging on the 'circumcision set' that Paul spoke against in Galations.
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself" Gal 5 v 14
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 15:27
Allan Meyer
LF - why do you still trot out the old furfy about the Sabbath? The Apostles DID speak to that issue. The fact that the SDA's don't accept what Paul said about the Sabbath, especially in Romans 14, isn't my problem. The fact is Paul DID talk to the Sabbath, and he DID talk to the issue of the COMMAND Jesus gave to continue the principle of the First Tithe in supporting New Testament workers.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 15:42
<Anonymous>
going ... Isa 32:17
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 16:15
nilmot
This ties in with Michael's post today about Law but I will post it here.
I do not want to suggest by any means that the OT has no value, but I do want to affirm Heb 8:13 "When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first OBSOLETE. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear."
Allen you seem to concede that the NT makes no real command to tithe but you feel that it is implied. You also appeal to some form of continuity with the law in order to make your case. I feel that such an approach is fraught with difficulties and dangers. It becomes very subjective when we say some laws have morphed, some have gained importance and some have ceaced. All manor of things can be justified, if we start pulling verses out of the OT. For instance violence, war, slavery, capital punishment, polygamy etc.
BTW, just a few examples of Laws we may find difficult to Christianise
Lev 25:45-46 "Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you.... they may become your property.
You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. "
Lev 21:17-20 "Tell Aaron, 'No man from your descendants throughout their generations who has a physical flaw is to approach to present the food of his God. Certainly no man who has a physical flaw is to approach: a blind man, or one who is lame, or one with a slit nose, or a limb too long, ..., or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or one with a spot in his eye, ... or a crushed testicle."
Lev 19:27 "You must not round off the corners of the hair on your head or ruin the corners of your beard"
Lev 11:7 "The pig is unclean to you because its hoof is divided ... and you must not touch their carcasses"
Lev 15:19 "When a woman has a discharge and her discharge is blood from her body, she is to be in her menstruation seven days and anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening."
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 16:16
Lionfish
Allan -
I agree that the NT does say that we are no longer under the OT Sabbath and to resist those who teach us to do so...that's my point, even though we are under the covenant of Grace, the SDA Pastors do use a hermeneutical approach similar to yours to justify their own dodgy heological position!
You have not demonstrated yet that we are still under compulsion to OT Civil requirement to Tithe when St Paul clearly speaks to give not out of compulsion (read: force, coercion, obligation, external pressure, mandate).
Your hermeneutical conclusion differs from other credible references including:
"The silence of the NT writers, particularly Paul, regarding the present validity of the tithe can be explained only on the ground that the dispensation of grace has no more place for a law of tithing than it has for a law on circumcision". Wycliffe Bible Dictionary of Theology (s.v. "tithe"):
"It is admitted universally that the payment of tithes or the tenths of possessions, for sacred purposes did not find a place within the Christian Church during the age covered by the apostles and their immediate successors". -Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
"The Christian Church depended at first on voluntary gifts from its members" -The Encyclopedia Britannica (s.v. "tithing")
The early Church had no tithing system ... it was not that no need of supporting the Church existed or was recognized, but rather that other means appeared to suffice.-New Catholic Encyclopedia
"It cannot be affirmed that the Old Testament law of tithes is binding on the Christian Church..." Easton's Bible Dictionary:
"This passage is often used by those who advocate "storehouse tithing"; that is, bringing the "tithe" into God's storehouse (the local church), rather than giving it anywhere else. They suggest that gifts to ministries other than the local church should be above the "tithe." Certainly the "storehouse" in Malachi represents the temple or a building in the temple complex. However, the OT "tithe" or "tenth" cannot be reasonably equated with ten percent of gross salary or wages which most earn today. Above all, giving should be a matter between the Holy Spirit and the believer, not a regulation. The "tithe" may be an adequate guide for determining how much some people could give (indeed, for many in a prosperous society, it is probably an inadequate level), but the amount of giving must be a personal decision. The Apostle Paul wrote that God examines the motives for the giving, not the amount (2 Corinthians 9:7)" Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D. - Key Word Study Bible (comments on Malachi 3:7-15, p.1173):
"2 Corinthians 8 and 9, "In contrast with the law, which imposed giving as a divine requirement, Christian giving is voluntary, and a test of sincerity and love". C. I. Scofield - Scofield Reference Bible.
Respectfully, Allan I still conclude you are in error. Do not bring us under Law. None of it 'filtered through' at the Cross.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 17:08
simple trust
Allan,
You say "he DID talk to the issue of the COMMAND Jesus gave to continue the principle of the First Tithe in supporting New Testament workers."
I presume you are still referring to the one tenuous verse in 1 Cor 9:14 where the context is on the rights of an Apostle not on the requirement of a Christian to tithe.
Then in 2 Corinthians 8:4 when it states "they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints" you disregard the statement to "give what you have decided in your heart" in 2 Corinthians 9:7 by ASSUMING that this was in addition to a "tithe" which is nowhere referred to in these two chapters.
Do you really believe this is a STRONG, CLEAR argument for tithing in the NT church??
You stated in your post: "Paul says the Lord had "commanded" that his workers were to be paid by the same principle that the Levites had been paid. By the way - when did the Lord command such a thing? It's not written in the gospels. Yet Paul says it was commanded by Christ."
As I have said before, I believe the principle being presented in this verse is that the person "who preaches the gospel" has the right of support. When did the Lord command such a thing? In Luke 10 when Jesus sent the 72 into the harvest field he said "stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages." Compare to 1 Corinthians 9:4. "Don't we have the right to food and drink?"
Why is the NT encouragement for generous giving under grace not enough for you? Do you believe that if the freedom to "give as one has decided in their heart" was taught by the leaders in your church that the ministry of your church would suffer? If so, does this not imply that in some way the people in your church are being manipulated to give more than they would otherwise give?
I will look forward to your response to these questions and to your next instalments. I hope that as well as imparting to us your "case for tithing" you are also thiking through these alternate views via this exchange and are taking the time to consider and reflect upon the arguments being presented as well as formulating your own rebuttal.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 17:22
Lionfish
Good points ST,
I think that it would warm our own hearts if Phil was to give an indication that he would even consider our side of the discussion (ie. the side of the forces light and truth) with a view to possible reform...:-)
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 17:31
Lionfish
Thinking over Allans responses, on the US one dollar bill there is an interesting juxtaposition of a banner which reads "In God we Trust"...
It appears with the reliance on the obselete OT Law of the tithe there is an implied metaphorical banner over the Church which reads "in money we trust".
C'mon Leaders, you are in the business of faith..."Who are you going to place your faith in?"
You can't serve two masters.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 17:53
nilmot
I have just re-read your post and I am sorry Allan but I have to say this, but this doctrine and the logic you are using is going from bad to worse.
"Believers are called to bring their first tithe and lay it at the feet of Jesus for his workforce. Confuse this tithe with the issue of New Testament offerings and no wonder the church never fulfills its commission. Christ's workforce is not up for grabs. His tithe is for his workers. You want to be compassionate to the poor - wonderful, but do it with your money, not with his. Christ already has a plan for his tithe."
So what you are saying is that NT believers are COMMANDED to give 10% of their income purely to pay the salaries of Church staff, and if you want to give money to the poor then fine, just don't do it with the first 10%, that's for the Pastors, sorry I mean Jesus!!! If you want to help the poor, do it with your own money!!.... I am finding this increasingly distasteful.
Please guys don't misunderstand LF, ST, Theo Detective and myself, we are not advocating stingyness, but on the contrary, we are advocating generous giving just NOT out of compulsion. The NT does not give us a one size fits all LAW on giving, it does not advocate a 10% minimum giving toward Pastors wages.
I realise though that we have reached a stalemate on this as far as Allan is concerned, he is convinced that 1 Cor 9 is a COMMAND for NT tithing, yet many of us remain far from convinced. I feel that this teaching of Allan's not only rests on poor logic, but goes against the grain of the NT teachings.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 20:25
Lionfish
Oh shit...I think I am going to have to fall on my sword...
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 21:18
Lionfish
OK, Allan. Your argument to date has been dubious at best, especially the s 2 Cor interpretation.
But as much as I hate to do this, as matter of integrity I now surrender some evidence that you may use to smite us all with, - though first it must be accurately reconciled to the discrepancy in the scriptures.
Didache: CHAPTER 13
1 But every true prophet who wishes to settle among you is "worthy of his food." 2 Likewise a true teacher is himself worthy, like the workman, of his food. 3 Therefore thou shalt take the firstfruit of the produce of the winepress and of the threshing-floor and of oxen and sheep, and shalt give them as the firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests. 4 But if you have not a prophet, give to the poor. 5 If thou makest bread, take the firstfruits, and give it according to the commandment. 6 Likewise when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, give the firstfruits to the prophets. 7 Of money also and clothes, and of all your possessions, take the firstfruits, as it seem best to you, and give according to the commandment.
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 21:52
going
thanks anonymous... will write it down for future reference ... seems like a few others need a good dose of peace !!! :o) I'll pray it in ... I really don't know of any other test, apart from covering things with the blood of the Lamb, to tell if something is off key than when I lose my peace... best barometre to know if you need to spend some time before the Lord on issues....
LF please do fall on your sword !!! The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword (Heb 4:12 Amp) it really is the only way to go :o)
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 22:14
nilmot
You are right Lionfish this must be reconciled with the discrepancy in the scriptures... The Didache is certainly an interesting and ancient Christian document, it was considered Canonical by some of the Church Fathers yet ultimately did not make it into the Canon, for good reason, I feel.
Nonetheless, here is another quote "Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord... And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 22:21
halieus
Frstfruits and tithes are different things altogether Lionfish. Aaron Milavec explains on the Didache comments of Did 13:1-7 (from bibletexts.com)
"First fruits were not to be confused with tithes. First fruits refer to "a token amount" (Sanders 199: 289) of the agricultural harvest of grapes or grains gown on the land that the Lord gave to Israel. The first fruits belonged to the Lord -- "Because God had given them the land, they wer to return a portion of its produce in ratitude for God's benevolence" (Horsley 1985: 53). The tithe, on the other hand, refers to a precise amount: one-tenth of the harvest. The English term "tithe is derived from the Middle English word for "tenth." "Tithe" is the only appropriate translation for the Hebrew maaser and the Greek dekate, since in each of these languages, the term popularly meant "tenth" (Sanders 1990: 290). The tithe belonged to the Levites and their families since they were restricted from owning or cultivating land for their task was to maintain and operate the Jerusalem temple. The distinction between "first fruits" and "tithes" cannot be missed within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves (e.g., Nm 18:12-32; Neh 10:35-38)."
In the Mishnah, the distinction between first fruits and tithes becomes even more elaborate (m . Bikkurim 2:3f.)... Here again it becomes clear that the first fruits of the soil involved a token quantity of high quality set aside as an offering to the Lord.
From this it can be surmised why first fruits would be embraced while tithes would be set aside. Tithing was designed to support the priests, the Levites, and their families. To be consistent, the Didache would have had to give tithes "to the prophets for they themselves are your high priests" (13:3). Since tithing involved a "tenth," the practice of tithing would have quickly destroyed the identity of prophets -- their lack of possessions and their wandering. even when prophets settled down in the Didache communities and were given free room and board, the Didache was never tempted to regard this as their "tithe." When one discovers, however, that first fruits and tithes were very different in the minds of Jews, it becomes possible to understand how the framers of the Didache could so strongly embrace one [first fruits] while flatly rejecting the other [tithes]. Aaron Milavec (The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E., NY: Newman Press, 2003, page 498)
also from bibletexts.com:
"Kurt Niederwimmer, in his Hermeneia series commentary on the Didache (The Didache, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998, page 193), also does not associate the "first fruits" of Did 13:1-7 with tithing. He comments:
The succession of the three final phrases is noteworthy. Labon ten aparchen (take the firstfruits") again recalls the cultic nature of the gifts; hos an soi doxe ("as you think best") liberates the givers from any kind of niggling legalism and appeals to the generosity of individuals; dos kata ten entolen finally makes clear again, in conclusion, that the offering here demanded rests on a binding "commandment" of the Kyrios [Lord]."
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 23:00
halieus
Also Everett Ferguson (Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries) says not much is mentioned by the early church about giving to ministers:
"The congregation's offerings might be made in produce, out of which the bread and wine for the communion was taken, but our sources quoted above refer to monetary contributions. This was a part of the service, and later sources describe the formal offering by the faithful of their gifts at the table where the eucharist was spread. Tithing was not practiced, being suspended with the end of the Old Testament. Justin makes the act of giving a regular feature of the weekly assembly. Tertullian says the donation was put in "on the monthly day" or whenever one wished, perhaps indicating whenever he received income... Not a great deal is said about the use of contributions for other than benevolent purposes -- for example, the support of Christian ministers..."
The Church pre-350AD seemed to believe that unlike 10%, all we have belongs to God and his service. Irenaeus sums up the attitude:
"And instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everthing we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions. Irenaeus (written around 180 A.D., ANF 1:477, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XIII, paragraph 3)"
and:
"The class of offerings in general has not been set aside. For there were both offerings there [among the Jews] and there are offerings here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the [Israelite] people; sacrifices there are, too, in the church. Only the outward form has been changed. For the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by free men... [The Jews] had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him. In contrast, those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things." Irenaeus (written 180 A.D., ANF 1:484-485)"
and Tertullian backs the voluntary nature of gifts:
"On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation -- but only if it is his pleasure and only if he is able. For there is no compulsion; all is voluntary" Tertullian (written 197 A.D., ANF 3:46
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 23:11
Cyril
Hermen has a lot to answer for, and his mate Stretch as well!
Roll on the judgement seat of Christ!
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 23:31
halieus
...and I can't agree that 1Corinthians 9:14 is a command and direction for the institution of the tithe.
Paul clearly makes an argument for the right of those who preach the Gospel to be able to live from their preaching. He establishes this right not only for his own support "a right to eat and drink(v4)" but also support for a wife(family by implication) like Peter and Jesus' brothers. The whole point of this argument by the way is connected to the previous chapter about self sacrifice for loves sake, for Christ's sake, for the gospels sake in which Paul shows that even though we have liberty and a right, in that instance to eat any meat, if it offends a weaker brother we should abstain for the sake of Christ and the body. Even so, Paul forfeited his right to maintenance so as not to appear to be doing it for wrong motives i.e.: financial reward, as some were doing, and causing offence.
Next, in verse 7, Paul appeals to natural examples of this principle that if you work preaching the gospel you should be able to make a living and gain support from believers. First, a soldier who is paid for his service, a good example in that everyone could understand the risky nature of warfare and Paul possibly alludes to the risk of injury or death in preaching however it's a natural example, he has a right to be paid, he's in warfare for them. Then the agricultural examples, A farmer eats from his own crop, the Corinthians were Paul's crop. Then, still vs7, "who feeds a flock, and doesn't drink from the flock's milk?", they were Paul's flock, he had a right to sustenance. None of these examples having anything to do with tithing.
In verse 8 he moves from the natural examples "of men" to spiritual examples to show that the law said the same thing, the same example of this right:
"8Do I speak these things according to the ways of men? Or doesn't the law also say the same thing?
__9For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it for the oxen that God cares,
__10or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope."
This is the only command that we take from the law concerning giving to those who proclaim the Gospel because they have a God ordained right to live from the Gospel. "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Paul says this is written for us and establishes a God ordained right to live off the work. He proclaims a deeper meaning and spiritual sense and interpretation of this scripture which applies to us.
Paul goes on to explain that he hasn't exercised this right so as not to hinder the Gospel even though he has a greater right than those who did.
__11. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
12. If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
13. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar?
14. So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
Paul's next example alludes to but doesn't actually mention the priests of the temple but establishes again the same principle of his right to live from preaching.
The Vs 14 "command" could be referring to either, "You shall not muzzle an ox" as a God ordained principle or, and likely (as nilmot and simple trust pointed out), Jesus' words that mean the same thing in both Matthew 10:10
"...8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Freely you received, so freely give.
Don't take any gold, nor silver, nor brass in your money belts.
Take no bag for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for THE LABOURER IS WORTHY OF HIS FOOD." Matthew 10:8-10
and Luke 10:7
"...5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.'
If a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.
Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, FOR THE LABOURER IS WORTHY OF HIS WAGES...." Luke 10:5-7
So although Paul had a right to financial support from the Corinthians he made the significant personal sacrifice and showed discipline to proclaim the Gospel without charge. Perhaps an example that would have as much significance now and add credibility to the preaching of the Gospel today as it did then?
Paul sums up in vs18 :"...18What then is my reward? That, when I preach the Gospel, I may present the Gospel of Christ without charge, so as not to abuse my authority in the Gospel."
Corinthians 9:18
Posted: 26-Sep-2005 23:42
27th September 2005Lionfish
Thanks Halieus...I have just removed the sword from my abdomen and have come back to fight...
It is only a flesh wound,
and I will once again rejoin the "Forces of Truth and Light" in the Crusade against Ecclesatial extortion by improper imposition of Tithes on the masses.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 06:00
nilmot
Phew!! LF, thats a relief, we thought we had lost you for a minute!!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 06:06
Lionfish
nilmot, back from the grip of damnation, and nearly swallowed up by Cyril's vortex - but I'M BACK!!!
Mate...we the Forces of Truth and Light are teachable as you know...and that carries much risk ;-)
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 06:57
Lobby
Theo Det',
No i dont think money is the answer.
but from the posts of my brothers here, i see that it has brought forth a spew of gluck that openly displays how they veiw money.
Who has ever planted a church? worked in a missionfield? done any sort of ministry? try doing it without money and then you will understand where i am coming from. Yes, God will always provide and did and does, but why, did a mission to Asutralian Aboriginies have to be funded from the USA?? i would say because too many people are sitting in this camp on their log around the fire talking about freewill giving, when they should have been getting off their fat arses, doing something to help those in need, helping those who were out there fulfilling their call to go into all the world. sorry but this really is a bug up my own arse ok!
you guys critisise and winge and carry on... PONTIFICATE! build a flamin bridge get over it and get out there... if you believe in the tithe... and your heart doesnt condemn you, do it. if you believe in freewill giving, and your heart doesnt condemn you, then flaminwell give all you have to the poor! and as far as not giving to ministries because you dont know what is going to happen with "your" doe... isnt it a matter of trust? (Sarc) isnt it Gods money anyway? (Sarc'er) dont you trust God to have his way with "your" money eh? EH?
All seem to find it fun or a joke to pull appart Allans posts, to which he has put in much time and effort, he has given you references and explanations. Have i seen one scripture to support your interpretation that is even close to convincing? you all seem happy to slam the OT as finished and gone... well i suggest you all throw it out, but beware... throw it out at your own perril. without the OT there is no reason for Christ, no reason for you to even ask forgiveness? because the OT is the foundation of all that Christ did and had to do.
The other isuue here is the lack of respect you "Puffed up, full of Knowledge muppets" seems to forget; Allan is a man who has served God for many many years, he is a man who cares, has a heart after God and has sacrificed much to do so. All i have seen in this thread, is a spirit to bring down and take the crap out of this guy... i wouldnt be walking around outside without a lightning rod if i were you...
Guys, Here you are going at Allan full speed. lets hear your story? how many lives are changed by your giving? how much effect are you having on your society? on the world? come on? spill it? how much do you give that is over and beyond?
can i be so bold as to say the answer in the main would be nudda nudda nudda?
if you truly think allan is wrong, then my challenege to you, is to get out there and prove it. plant your own church, work your butt orf for 20 years and plant 4000 churches as well, and we will get togther in twenty years and see how your theology on giving is going then...
then, maybe then, i will shut up when you criticise... maybe...
anyway, i'd jus like to say, even in thelight of my stingingness, I luv yas all!
oh Lf,
one last thing... even Satanists believe they are on the side of truth and light!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 07:53
simple trust
Excellent posts halieus. Well thought out and comprehensive.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 07:55
simple trust
Lobby,
Have you ever heard of Rees Howells? He is one person that comes to mind as an example of someone who did much good work for the kingdom of God without even ever asking for money - not that this is what I am suggesting.
I don't believe that we have "poked fun" at Allan's posts. I have the deepest respect for this man and his ministry. This dialogue is important though and the view we have expressed is not only our view - did you read the references that LF referred to in an earlier post? I believe this has been a helpful discussion and I'm sure most of the readers and contributors would feel likewise.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 08:03
Cyril
4000 churches? ..... that's a lie.
But to twist the Scripture is a worse lie.
To believe that Truth is established by one's own so-called achievements is living a lie.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 10:53
Salt
Hang on a minute Cyril What makes you think its a Lie about 4000 churches Where's your Proof Lets hear about it If you have any..... If your going to claim Something is a lie at Least Put some evidence to your Ramblings.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 11:07
Danielb
Dear Allan,
Thank you so much for your series on the tithing. I have been encouraged by your thoughts on this issue. I do tithe and see this portion as not my money but God's. I will also continue to pray for the rest of my church to tithe as well.
Regards
dan
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 12:43
...
Cyril... You wrote "4000 churches? ..... that's a lie. But to twist the Scripture is a worse lie. To believe that Truth is established by one's own so-called achievements is living a lie."
How can you justify your outright accusations of lying?
You need to read all of the posts Cyril. Right from the beginning Allan said that his own personal encounter with God is not a means by which others should take his views as authoritative.
Allan has been very open and transparent with everyone here yet you call him a liar. Judge not!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 13:27
Vic Bitter
Deut 14: 24 Now the place the LORD your God chooses for his name to be honored might be a long way from your home. 25 If so, you may sell the tithe portion of your crops and herds and take the money to the place the LORD your God chooses. 26 When you arrive, use the money to buy anything you want - an ox, a sheep, some wine, or beer. Then feast there in the presence of the LORD your God and celebrate with your household.......
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 13:51
27th September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #7
So some are confirmed in the commitment to Tithing, and others are confirmed in their rejection. Why am I not surprised? Because I've been a believer for too long. I remember years of sitting around tables listening to Lutherans arguing with our closest theological allies in the Reformed Church about the issue of Communion. Face to face with Bibles open, Greek texts flying, and no limit to the banter and cross examination that could take place - yet I never saw a single Lutheran or Reformo leave one of those discussions with a new perspective. Why would I expect more from this limited form of debate?
I read some of your comments and I despair of the usefulness of this form of dialogue. Nevertheless, I'll do my bit and you do yours. Maybe somebody is getting something out of this, so here goes.
Luke 15 and 16 record a series of 5 parables told by Jesus. The occasion of the telling is found in Mark 2. Jesus called Matthew the Tax Collector to join his ministry team. That night Matthew threw a party and invited his friends - a party of tax collectors and sinners talking theology with Jesus and his disciples. Religious folks showed up with a question - "Why would a man who claims to be representing Yahweh associate with people so obviously irreligious?" The answer to that question triggered the telling of the first three parables.
Parable 1 - the lost sheep. God's priority is not with those who have found their way home - God's priority is with those who are yet to find their way home. For them everything hangs in the balance. There is more joy in heaven over one lost sheep found than over 99 fat found sheep that are already in the fold. The mission of finding lost sheep is the highest priority in the Kingdom.
Parable 2 - the lost coin. A woman would have a strategy if she were to lose a coin. Churches are supposed to have a strategy - sweep every square inch until you find what has been lost. Again, there's more joy in heaven over finding lost things than in counting found things. The mission for the lost demands diligence, strategy, and the highest priority in the Kingdom.
Parable 3 - the Father with two lost sons. You can be lost outside the house and you can be lost inside the house. For those lost outside the house life is hard and dangerous. The Father's highest priority is not justice, but mercy. He hugs, kisses, and throws parties for returning lost sons. The good sons who never left home in the first place don't always appreciate the fact that Father's passion is turned more toward the lost than themselves - but there's a reason for it. The one's at home have everything - all the blessings of the Kingdom are available to them even if they are sour pusses and fail to appreciate what a privilege it is to be a son of the Kingdom. But the ones who are lost have nothing. They have nothing. It's appropriate that Father's priority would be towards the ones who have nothing because those of us who are serving in the house have everything.
With these three parables Jesus answered his critics and established for ever the highest priority in God's kingdom - bringing home lost kids. The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Father for more workers in the harvest field (Matt 9).
Now he turned to his disciples and directed the fourth parable to them. If you understand that winning the lost is the highest priority you need to understand the key to fulfilling that priority. What is that key? Is it prayer? Is it miracles? Is it healing? Is it prophetic encounters? They all play their part but in this context Jesus highlights one key. What is that key? THE KEY IS STEWARDSHIP.
Now Jesus delivers his connecting link. God's highest priority is winning the lost. The key to winning the lost - The Parable of the Tricky Steward. The steward who discovered he was about to get the sack. He used his final hours of financial control to win friends for himself so that when he got the sack his future would be taken care of. Every one of us going to get the sack. Life is short and our stewardship is for this life only. Jesus point - sieze the day, use your assets, your income and your stewardship over the things of this life to make friends for the Kingdom. Stewardship is the key to the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
The Pharisees burst out laughing. Use our stewardship for the benefit of lost people? What a joke. Why the humour? Because Pharisees were middle class business men. They were the money boys and they had no intention of spending it on lost people. No stewardship for them.
Turning back to the Pharisees Jesus had one more parable. You think Stewardship is a joke? Well, let me give you one more parable. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. A parable of terrible consequences. The story of the Rich man who ignored the claims of stewardship while Lazarus perished at his gate. Raised in the land of the Covenants under the sound of the Word of God, living with the best of everything, yet strangely resistant to the claims of God's word on the rich. He ended up in hell pleading for a visitation for his brothers to awaken them to their responsibilities. The response - they have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them. If you won't take Moses and the Prophets seriously a resurrection won't change your attitude.
We are among the richest people history has ever known. We are rich in every way. We have finance, opportunity, education, peace in our time. The poorest of us lives like a King. We have been raised in a nation where the gospel of Christ has been proclaimed widely, we have a Bible of our own to read, and we are placed in a situation that provides us with an opportunity to leverage our prosperity and our faith for the winning of millions of souls for Christ and Eternity. But the key is STEWARDSHIP. You want to influence Christ's body on the issue of Stewardship? Guard your words, you are messing with a key of the Kingdom. This is not just a word fest - what you say to others about their giving changes history.
I have presented a theology of Tithes and Offerings for the New Testament Church. My theology runs in an unbroken stream from Genesis to the New Testament. It embraces the wisdom of God as revealed under the Abrahamic Covenant, it embraces the wisdom of God regarding stewardship under the Mosaic Covenant - then filters that Old Testament wisdom through the cross using the Apostolic insights of the Apostle Paul.
Paul says we have a COMMAND of Jesus Christ to fulfill. That command is to ensure that the principle established in the OT which set aside a Tithe for the support of his workforce is continued in the NT. Let me ask you a question. How do you honour that command? Do you blow off a command of Jesus as if it is nothing? I don't. I honour that command by making my first act of giving the laying aside of a tithe of my income to Christ, and then ensuring that our leadership honour his Priesthood by using that tithe for no other purpose than the release of labourers into the harvest. For those who want to avoid this COMMAND by claiming the Priesthood of all Believers, I will address you tomorrow. Deal with 1 Cor 9 honestly or get out of the kitchen.
Our Stewardship in the Kingdom does not stop with the Tithe. It commences with the Tithe. 2 Cor. 8 and 9 calls on us a Kingdom people to give without an upper limit to win friends for the Kingdom while our stewardship lasts. Tomorrow I will share how this has worked out in some very challenging situations for us at Careforce Church over the past 20 years.
I will conclude this series with My Story tomorrow and draw together a number of threads I have deliberately left untouched up to this point. My only reason for not addressing some of the pertinent issues was in an attempt to keep the posts to a manageable size.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 27-Sep-2005 03:00
26 comments Comments on this post...
27th September 2005JeffTyler
Luke 9:24 (MRC) "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake, he shall save it."
I would loosely apply this to monetary possessions. He who wishes to hold on to, or to have control of his wealth will lose it, but he who gives his wealth to God for His kingdom, gains that which is greater than money.
Im not suggesting tithing 100% of your income. I am suggesting God knows what to do with your money better than you do.
----
Im really interested in pursuing this second and third tithe you have been discussing earlier. Sounds like another good example of biblical wisdom for financial freedom...
J.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 04:52
nilmot
So Allan, you are not suprised at the level of disagreement here? Well nor am I.... The reason there is so much disagreement is that this is NOT a straightforward teaching of the NT. Some things are straightforward, like "love your neighbour as yourself" that is an explicit teaching of the NT, no debate there, but when you try and teach something like this it is always going to be contentious. You must concede this Allan.
BTW if you are going to maintain that tithing has been an unbroken tradition from the OT to the New, then I suggest you submit an edit of the Wikipedia article on tithing.
"Tithes were not adopted by the Christian church for over seven centuries. Although rejected, they were mentioned in councils at Tours in 567 and at Mâcon in 585. They were formally recognized under Pope Adrian I in 787. Tithing in Christian churches today is frequently preached from the pulpit, but denominations and sects view tithing differently. As tithing was only a requirement found in the Old Testament, some consider it to be a practice that has no place in modern Christianity. Others, such as Word of Faith advocates, espouse that tithing which is inspired in the individual by God will enable blessings, usually financial, with references to ten or hundred-fold increases."
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 05:55
Lionfish
Allan,
I think that you sell us short when it comes to these issues.
I all honesty, when I have always been open to your teaching, and when I reread the Didache last night, I was willing and humble enough to change my views...check the timestamp of my post last night!
In fact I used to vehemently oppose infant Baptism with more fervor than I have displayed with the issue of tithing - after studying the scriptures and practices of the early Church I now embrace this teaching as Truth when used appropraitely.
We are teachable. We are open to Truth and change. But Allan, respectfully your case is not enough. Stewardship by each person giving generously and what is purposed on his heart is one of the keys to "getting stuff done"...but the scriptures do set people free from the OT Law, compulsion and "arm twisting" to give.
You guys have to have more faith in God, the Truth as presented in the scriptures and the frewill generosity of regenerate believers.
As you said yourself, we can get much insight of what the early apostles were thinking from a single scripture:
"I want each of you to take plenty of time to think it over, and make up your own mind what you will give. That will protect you against sob stories and arm-twisting. God loves it when the giver delights in the giving."
In fact I personally would give more cheerfully, generously and liberally if I felt I was not being manipulated by the inappropraitte use of scripture and used by the Church...and there was greater transparency and integrity from the collection point right through to where the funds end up.
Following the media stories of late of one particualr related unnamed mega-churn, my heart churns seeing where so much money actually ends up.
C'mon guys...we are teachable - but we are not STUPID!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 06:29
Lionfish
mega-churn = mega-church
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 06:30
Farbs
There is obviously an incredible amount of work, knowledge, wisdom, and passion that has gone into this thread, and it has been an interesting read. I'm sure plenty of people yet to make a conclusion about giving would have benefited from the discussion, in terms of drawing their own conclusions, while those of you who have decided in your own hearts how you will give, will not necessarily be changing your stance. But I'd like to throw it out there that instead of trying to answer an unanswerable question, (one that invariably ends up in the same place each time it is brought up on the site), that all of the knowledge and wisdom that is on hand is put to better use.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 07:08
Allan Meyer
On one thing I do agree with Nilmot, this is not a straight forward issue like "love your neighbour as yourself". It is an issue which hangs on hermeneutics, a point which I made from the very first post.
My despair is not that everyone doesn't agree with me, I expected that from the first word. If Lutherans and Reformo's couldn't agree on Communion sitting around the same table with no hinderance to the discussion process I'm not so naive as to think everyone would fall over themselves and change their views on the basis of this very limited form of discussion.
This is a subject on which your hermeneutics will determine the outcome. And that's the point of despair. What a pointless discussion - arguing about an issue like Tithes and Offerings in an environment where it is not possible to stop the discussion and actually resolve even one key parameter of the hermeneutics involved. Pointless.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 07:22
simple trust
Good morning Allan,
Thanks for your latest post and your willingness to continue in this discussion even though it sounds like you are frustrated. You say, "so some are confirmed in the commitment to Tithing, and others are confirmed in their rejection."
There are few things in scripture that I hold a "confirmed and unmovable" opinion on and these are mainly key, orthodox tenets of the Christian faith. Knowing that I am a fallible human being I try to hold all views lightly (including my views on giving and tithing) so that God is able to keep refining my views according to his words of truth by his Spirit. My prayer is that I would always remain humble enough to allow the Spirit of God to keep moulding my understanding of the many truths about God and the church etc. Only recently I have been challenged on some of my long held views and have had to change my stance. I would be willing to do likewise on this issue if I felt there was a strong argument from scripture to support your view....but this is not the case.
You say, "I remember years of sitting around tables listening to Lutherans arguing with our closest theological allies in the Reformed Church about the issue of Communion. Face to face with Bibles open, Greek texts flying, and no limit to the banter and cross examination that could take place..."
I take your point as I have been in similar situations and know the strength of theological opinion on both sides of the fence. Knowing the Lutheran stance on this issue I don't believe they would ever change their view and am not even sure that it is important that they do. But I could cite other examples where Christians of different persuasions have met to learn from one another and engage in a conversation where each participant is teachable. I believed that this conversation on tithing and offerings had this sort of "open flavour".
I agree wholeheartedly that "the mission for the lost demands diligence, strategy, and the highest priority in the Kingdom." I agree that good stewardship is vital.
In fact I am sure we are on the same page in many areas Alan. Even on this issue I am sure there are many things we agree on. The main point of distinction is that it seems you wish to raise funds for ministry by calling people to submit to an OT law which requires that they give 10% whereas I submit that we are under a new covenant of grace where we are encouraged to give generously and not under compulsion. If this message of grace and freedom in relation to giving was preached from the front of your church I wonder whether in fact the level of giving would actually increase?!?
I'm sorry you feel despair. Do you really feel this has been a pointless discussion? I do not feel it has been an argument. The only pointless discussion is one where either/both parties are not willing to listen to and consider the other's point of view. I have enjoyed reading your posts and following your line of thinking. Although I have disagreed with your hermeneutic and resultant conclusions on this issue I'm sure there would be other issues where I could be challenged to change.
The main reason I have been interested in contributing to this discussion is that I feel it is a vital issue for today's church and have spoken to many, many people over recent year's who have been very put off by the way tithing/giving money is preached from the front of many churches. Many people feel coerced, manipulated etc... and if anything have chosen not to give because of the constant and applied pressure in this area. If freedom and grace could be expressed in this vital area I believe even more could be achieved in reaching the lost and proclaiming the kingdom of God.
Please Allan & Phil, consider the views that have been expressed in this dialogue and at the very least be willing to submit your views before God in prayer with a humble heart - as each of us should be doing on a continual basis.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 07:47
Trogdor
I've enjoyed the series quite a bit, even though I kept myself out of the arguements, I mean, fruitful exchanges of ideas.
I think that tithing, like every thing else in the Bible, is a heart issue. Simply quoting scriptures and even using history as one's precedent is not enough to change hearts. You might inspire some thoughts (and I am sure that this thread has done just that) but real heart change only comes from God.
I am in agreement with Simple Trust on this one. That we should be always prepared to submit our hearts to God for him to lead us to change them.
My personal view? I'll quote some principles from the good Terry Pratchett on this one (I'll quote him twice really) the first is from Going Postal where one of the characters remarks that you cannot pick and choose the principles of the religion you choose to follow. You must have them all or nothing. The second thing (and I can actually give the words verbatim on this one) is "It is the Thing and the Whole of the Thing." Just like any belief system Christianity is made up of many aspects. If we rob it of one part, we don't have what it really is.
Again, thanks Alan and Phil for the stuff that you get us to think about. You guys are great!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 08:04
simple trust
Allan,
We agreed with you early on that agreement on the hermeneutical basis of this discussion was vital. I would really appreciate it if you could at this point clarify where you think our hermeneutics differ.
Here are the suggested hermeneutical principles that LF suggested in an earlier post. I think it would be helpful if you could let us know which of these principles you agree with and clarify your view on the key areas that we differ.
Thanks again for your time Allan and may God continue to bless you richly in all that you do!!
We must acknowledge that there is a clear distinction between OT and NT
There are two distinct covenants between God and His People - Law and Grace
Scriptures need to be read and applied in context (understood in terms of the specifics to whom they were written, why they where written and in terms of the entire chapter and book with which they were written).
We need to be consistent in term of our interpretation and application (eg. If we need to apply one aspect of old testament law then we need to apply all other aspects of law eg. Sabbath, Circumcision etc).
'Hearing from God' needs to be consistent with his word for today. (Always way about this one!).
Biblical Truth (as per scripture) should always take precedence over Tradition.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 08:10
Hamo
At last!
I have finally read all posts and comments on this topic - not in great depth I will admit, but I have got the gist of it.
Good on ya Alan for having the guts to put your stuff out there. Its a bold move.
Up until a few years back I would have agreed with you.
A significant reshaping of my own theology on this issue happened as I read Stuart Murray's 'Beyond Tithing'. Have you read it? He addresses the Melchizedek issue very carefully and in my opinion he is an excellent theologian.
I have to say that as I read your posts (and as one who holds a contrary opinion to your own) I feel a bit 'bullied' almost into accepting your position and seeing my own as intellectually / theologically weak. 'Bullied' is too strong a word, but in places I feel like you would be frustrated with me for not getting what is to you so obvious.
At the same time I hear you articulate the futility of a conversation where we will inevitably have people occupying different theological positions.
To some of us it is not obvious - in fact it is almost as obvious that we cannot embrace tithing as you describe it.
To write the reasons for my own position would take as long as you have taken to write yours - so it aint gonna happen! I do have a sermon on the topic which I may be happy to email you and you can respond to - but... it may well be an exercise in futility. (i'd need to re-read it to make sure I am still happy with it - its an oldie now)
What is probably more important is ongoing conversation and grace for each other as we follow the Spirit.
I may be wrong in what I believe.
You may be wrong in what you believe.
At the end of the day we need to listen to the Spirit and be true to what we believe the scriptures are saying as we read them.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 09:03
hamo
As I re-read that it feels like it could be a bit of a 'post-modern' 'truth is relative' cop out.
Its not meant that way at all. Those who know me would know I also have a high view of scripture.
I just have a very low view of our ability to interpret it infalibly :)
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 09:06
Daniel
Allan, I agree with what you have to say on this topic. Before reading this I hung in the balance. I had even considered stopping giving my tithe to the Church and rather sponsor multiple children with World Vision.
Like many people I had been thinking that, if the tithe is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, does it still apply? However, I committed some time ago in faith to tithe (regardless of my uncertainty) in light of the importance of funding the church and the cause of the Gospel. Reading these posts helped me to see clearly the importance of placing the tithe into the church and dedicating it to the LORD. It has also opened my eyes to many unclear issues surrounding the tithe.
Thank you for your courageous posts on this issue.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 09:54
Daniel
Please let me say (just in case my previous post seemed odd)... I do believe it is very good to sponsor children living in terrible circumstances through World Vision, Compassion etc.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 10:13
Me Again
To me Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. To me, this means that when I tithe, all my money is holy - even that which I pay to the government in taxes and the money I pay the grocer. Now that is exciting!
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 11:23
NoC
I've been following this quietly. Important background - I don't believe that the Bible is God's last word to us, I see it as neither authoritative nor infallible, which I'm guessing makes me fairly lonely here. In some ways that makes my input irrelevant as the whole foundation of my relationship to Jesus is different.
I don't believe my way is absolutely better, I do believe as Simple Trust mentioned that we are all imperfect, fallible, I believe our efforts to know God are imperfect. As long as we remember motes and logs, we should be able to coexist.
We can still share opinions though, or where's the fun?
The hermeneutic approach to understanding tithing seems to me to be deeply legalistic, almost Pharasaical. As Hamo said, it's intellectually and theologically battering, the depth of Allan's knowledge is formidable and people here intelligent enough but without the academic background and so on are unable to formulate a response. It's like going to court and defending yourself, when the other side has a QC.
Without meaning to be arrogant, God gave us all different strengths and I think most people on Earth would lack the intelligence to interpret the Bible in that depth, and to understand that approach. I don't feel God would expect that of us when he hasn't equipped many of us to do it. If this is the only way to fully follow Christ, then most of the Earth's population are in deep brimstone.
So I don't agree with the methodology, and even if you do agree with this form of interpretation, Allan noted that you bring your own set of preconceptions to it, and sorting through those complicates things further.
This doesn't make it pointless though. Discussions like this do advance each one's understanding, even if we don't appear to change. That's ok, the Spirit speaks to each of us in ways we can understand, and the message to each may be different based on who we are, and what we are capable of understanding at the time. Even if we don't budge at this point, something you Allan, or someone else says, may plant seeds that the Spirit can use to grow many years down the track.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 11:44
Roger
Allen
As an observation it seems that your words are indicating a "my way or the highway" approach to this. I quote:
"Guard your words, you are messing with a key of the Kingdom. This is not just a word fest - what you say to others about their giving changes history."
"Deal with 1 Cor 9 honestly or get out of the kitchen."
To me, this reads, "disagree with me and you are messing with God's purpose". It's along the lines of the "don't touch the anointed" philosophy that gets promulgated amongst the followers of the TV evangelists. I was hoping that you weren't going to go there.
Roger
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 13:02
cam
I have also been following quietly and have a similar view to NoC - although I do believe that the bible is infallible and is the ulitmate truth.
After reading both sides of the argument I tend to side on the "give as the spirit leads". This being said I "tithe" 10% for the discipline of it and give extra when I can find it!
I always struggle to justify highly convoluted and intellectual answers to spiritual problems. Most chistians dont have the capacity to get to these answers themselves let alone process such theology when it is taught to them. Does God intend them to be left out in the cold and not understand the bible? I wouldn't think so. I think that it is likely that the answer must be simple for such an important part of chrictain living, therefore when the NT says to give not out of compulsion, lets do so - figuring out what has filtered through the cross seems a very complicated way of arriving at answers. Besides, if we are giving freely to the church and other causes, does it matter if its because we are tithing to the rule or giving through grace...
Theres my disconnected 2 cents worth (from a scientist not a theologin, but you can probably tell)
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 14:38
cam
I would be interested where the other contributers stand on the issue... phil,haydn, mike?
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 14:42
going
the law is what exposes our need for grace... if the law wasn't there we wouldn't know of our need, grace is misinterprited all the time to something it is not, it is for overcoming the consequences of the fall (sin, which is only revealed as sin by the law) through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit ... grace dosen't render the law obsolete, in most cases it enhances it .. lust as adultery .. hatred as murder ... re-read the list of those who won't make it to heaven, we are now accountable for what we think in our hearts and our motives, not just our outward acts of sin that the law exposes, but our inward unforgiveness, unbelief, malice, control, hatred etc... that the OT law never dealt with or called people to account for. I guess you could say that these come under loving your neighbour as yourself, but you can love your neighbour by your actions, but hate his guts in your heart, which is the true ground that God really wants... we have the Holy Spirit within us as we are His temple which is why these sins are listed, they block His work through us, we will have even less excuses when we get to heaven because of the great grace to overcome sin that has been entrusted to us...... :o)
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 17:42
Paddo
Hi all you beautiful people!!!
Allan, you're an absolute champion. I take my hat off to you. Not only are you a senior pastor, responsible for a major church, but even while on Holiday(!), you took the time and effort to post some seriously long and indepth articles on your belief's regarding tithing. Your servant heart is admirable and I only hope to have your determination in regards to my own theological approach to my faith. You have also taken major steps by your integrity to address one of the side issues within this post. The transparency of church leadership in regards to finances. It is good to see what you are basing your Theology on and even if we don't all agree with it, your still being transparent and true to your heart in regards to what the Lord has told and revealed to you (one of the major arguments against coercive giving).
Some have commented that they disagree and "could" post a similar argument in such depth for the opposite side, but are too busy... Oh Well! (Lobby :)). Enough said there!!
My two cents, for what their worth, and before you, Allan, have had a chance to tie up the loose ends (of which I have a few I would like you to comment on) are as such.
This discussion was hard to follow due to it's hermeneutical basis. The plain truth of the matter is that the pro's and con's of Tithing weren't argued on the same hermeneutical foundation and therefore, aren't even relevant to one another which hasn't made drawing a conclusion easy. ( LF, I don't even agree with your "hermeneutics" - there are way more then 2 covenants between God and his people - Have you read Chronicles? (and if you're talking about dispensations then don't get me started) - There isn't that clear a line between OT and NT - Technically the four Gospels are OT writings!(but they're in the NT, how does that work?) frankly I found that drawing Allan into your own list of hermeneutical principals was extremely pretentious. However I am interested in hearing how you use those principals to draw your conclusions about NT giving. I don't understand how you expect Allan to use them.
I found LF and clan's points interesting, but by not addressing Allan's points as a whole, (PARTICULARLY THE 1 COR 9 ISSUE FELLA'S!!!), meant that I couldn't and can't give my heart over to giving as I feel the Lord leads me (as the foundation for my tithes that is). However I would agree that the drawing of the COMMAND (hehe) as it were, isn't a firm foundation for basing NT Tithing on completely. It appears shaky and unsupported which IS dangerous, but also intriguing as it has called my attention to see if there are other scriptures in the NT to suggest a similar foundation and therefore provide support to NT tithing. (to quote: 'Do the work').
Having said that... there is sufficient binding together and follow-through to see that there is, DEFINITELY, a case for NT Tithing to my local church, based on Allan's Hermeneutics. 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9 are not stand alone scriptures that dictate the entire Christian theology in regards to tithing and giving. They just aren't... Alan has at least showed this to be true with his comments on stewardship and 1 Cor. 9.
Through this whole discussion it has been on my heart to question whether I prefer to tithe to ease my conscience and not have to seek God, or because I really believe it is what Jesus wants for me as a part his church. It is easy for me to put my tithe in and think, 'that's it, done my duty and now back to my life', without really taking time out each week to seek God about how much he wants me to give. I do give as I feel lead above the Tithe, but very very rarely to my local church.
Can I quickly post a few things Allan, that I would like you to touch on? A few loose ends that I would like to have wrapped up.
1) Because of your comments in regards to the parables and the main drive of the church is seek out the lost... and also that the purpose of the Tithe is to support workers of the gospel, does this mean that any churches mission's budget should be primarily funded out of the Churches weekly offerings, or should there be separate budget (or tithe) for the missions and the 1st tithe go to the workers of the local church only?
2) I deleted this question - move on please:)
3) Hillsongs (and others?) put Malachi 3:10 on the inside of their offering and tithing envelopes, but according to you, it should be 1 Cor 9 (14?). Surely putting this OT scripture on the inside of these envelopes is encouraging the 'giving to get' prosperity doctrine, not the stewardship/ support doctrine that you have introduced?
4) Q3 raising the questions that were originally posted. Is a churches motive for implying the 10% based on scripture or fear? Surely we would see Malachi 3:10 through 1 Cor 9 filter/lens? (what a useless argument LF, seriously!) Not necessarily the 10% tithe under question, but rather the motives and conviction of some churches in regards to the giving of their people. I can see the NT method that you suggest being extremely productive and more community building, which will then give people a greater sense of community, responsibility and family - which I feel is lost in most churches today. If other churches also use your Hermeneutical foundation for emphasizing 10% then why do they continually look to OT examples, rather then teach the NT method?
5) Have you found more examples of the COMMAND in the NT?
In all ways Allan, you are to be commended for your perseverance with this topic. I cannot say how much I have enjoyed picking your brain and teachings in regards to this topic. It has been a major brain drain for all of us to trudge through this massive blog discussion over the last couple of weeks, but it is definitely worth it from my side anyway.
Big holy kisses to everyone!
Paddo
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 19:19
nilmot
Just for the record, the position that Allan is espousing is one I once held, simply because I was taught it at Riverview (then Rhema), at the time I was young, late teens, I had lots of time, and I spent most of it reading and studying the Bible, simply because I loved it (and still do). In 1995, I attended Rhema Bible College, ironically though by the end of that year due to the many, many hours of study, and an open mind, I came to see holes in a lot of the Theology that was being taught in the College, eg word of faith, prosperity, and yes tithing. The arguments I have made in this series, are the result of 10 years and countless hours of thought. I may well be wrong, but this is the only honest, logical conclusion I am able to come to. I do feel that the position I hold is entirely valid, even if it is ultimately incorrect as Allan would contend.
So having said that I do want to say that Lobby, many of your comments have been extemely disrespectful and entirely unhelpful to the debate. Comments like these are not warranted.
""you shall know them by their fruit" and yet you guys are like crows, picking away at the fruit with gay abondon...
so i will say it for Allan. where is the fruit of your theology in this area? where are your changed lives and planted churches and poor helped, people set free? where?"
"you guys critisise and winge and carry on.."
"All seem to find it fun or a joke to pull appart Allans posts"
"The other isuue here is the lack of respect you "Puffed up, full of Knowledge muppets" seems to forget"
"All i have seen in this thread, is a spirit to bring down and take the crap out of this guy... i wouldnt be walking around outside without a lightning rod if i were you..."
"Guys, Here you are going at Allan full speed. lets hear your story? how many lives are changed by your giving? how much effect are you having on your society? on the world? come on? spill it? how much do you give that is over and beyond?
can i be so bold as to say the answer in the main would be nudda nudda nudda?"
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 21:14
nilmot
Lobby, please give us more respect than that. You don't know how many hours of thought and prayer we have given to this, you don't know how much money we give, you don't know how much of our lives and our time we have laid down in service to Christ.
Also I do not like this boasting and attitude that says "when you have planted 4000 churches, then you can have an opinion" I repeat, you don't know what each one of us has done with our lives so far, we may not be Mega-Church Pastors but that does not make our efforts any less significant.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 21:27
Lionfish
Allan,
You state "Because Pharisees were middle class business men. They were the money boys and they had no intention of spending it on lost people. No stewardship for them".
In fact Pharisees were the Religious leaders of the day and were infact good stewards:
-Lived good lifestyles of those with less than themselves (devoured widows houses)
-Boasted of their "good works" to win the praise of me (but got their reward in the present)
-Promoted themselves in the market place
-Loved mixing with politicians and taking the best seats at important events (probably ran a few of the events themselves)
-Played legalistic games by setting up "special entities" designed to harbour finances for their own benefit in the long term
-Travelled over land and seas to win just one convert and turn them into law-keeping carbon copies of themselves
-Were good stewards and very, very good tithers!.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 21:31
Allan Meyer
BUT, LF - they mocked Jesus when he talked about using their money on LOST PEOPLE. Read the text again in Luke 16 - "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus" My comments are straight out of the Bible.
Posted: 27-Sep-2005 22:54
28th September 2005Lionfish
They were "God's Millionaires" Al?...Say no more!
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 07:03
3rd October 2005Lobby
Nilmot,
(Sorry, work has been busy, i havent been hiding in the corner... really!)
If you reread many of the posts, i took them as a direct attack on Allans charracter. I guess that riled me and i may have gone a little too far. I have heard so many "Ideas" shared by so many who have never been there or done that; they almost always amount to nothing in the end.
I am not saying dont have an opinion or study to find a result as to what you believe, i was just simply saying, dont be so quick to degrade what Allan is saying. And there is a place where you can share an opposing position without attacking those who disagree with you.
But on the fruit issue... please take it as a challenge. whether you believe in 10% or in freewill giving, there is a world of hurting dying people who need me and you to actually get over this point and start doing the stuff. in my spirit i feel 10% is simply a good start, (Even though i do struggle at times to give that amount). It is also logical to support your local church. that is where you worship, celebrate, get fed (I hope) and help others. The church is set up to reach the world, it has the ability and the vehicle, now all it needs a the fuel and we can make a huge difference in this country and the world. Money isnt the answer, but it is part of it. Try doing what Rhinehart Bonke' does without money??? try doing what the small anglican church down the road feeding the homeless does without money? Money is not God, but God does use it as a tool, as we do.
I will also say, i may have misread, but there seemed to be a sense of "You can bugger orf when it comes to my money" in many comments. I have never seen what i earn as my money, for i am a slave to Christ, he is my master and if he tells me give, then that is what i must do? (Most the time, yes i am fallible and fallen) but that could explain a lot of the reason i dont drive a flash car or own my own home or have a lot of cash to flash around? or maybe its just my own lack of good judgement. (I may have to borrow LF's sword after that comment...=)
But then i have just been told by a fellow worker, that i have no relational skills and if i were his boss he wouldnt work for me. (and a few other choice words thrown in that were uplifting and exhillerating) so maybe i better go stare in the mirror for a while...
so the bathroom will be "Engaged" for a while.
=)
Posted: 3-Oct-2005 09:36
28th September 2005A Theology of Tithes & Offerings for the New Testament Church #8
I want to say at the start of this almost final post on the issue that I agree with a comment made by Nilmot yesterday, that this issue of Tithes and Offerings in the New Testament is not as straight forward an issue as "love your neighbour as yourself". That is clearly true. It is a complex subject and the view each person comes to will at least in part hang on hermeneutics, a point which I made from the very first post. And the fact is, there are very diverse systems of hermeneutics out there. Nevertheless, we have had a go at the subject and I would like to conclude with MY STORY.
Being raised a Lutheran I heard very little of the concept of Tithing, yet I still remember my third pastor preaching a message on the subject nearly 40 years ago and encouraging us that 90% of our income spent with the blessing of God was better value than 100% of our income spent without it. But Lutherans were not tithers as a group. My Dad was an elder and I new that most of the income of our Lutheran church came from very few people. And it showed in the way our church did ministry. When our church was a congregation of 600 people, one of the largest in Victoria, it could only afford a pastor and a student pastor. We did stamps for missions on a Friday night. It was our big push to evangelize the world. But God met me in that church and I was called to the ministry while a 19 year old university student. When I say I was called to ministry I mean it. God spoke to me inside my body and said a single sentence: "I want you to be a minister." I bawled my head off. I wanted to be a teacher, not a minister.
I did become a teacher for 7 years and through preaching in my High School and opening my home to students my wife and I started a small revival. As kids got saved I had to find a home for them. The Lutheran church was just not going to work, so I looked for the most vital church I could find to connect them locally. That was a Pentecostal church under the leadership of a great man in Pastor Hal Oxley. He watched me bringing kids by the bus load and eventually called me to become their first Youth Pastor. So I left teaching and followed the call.
The Pentecostal church did teach tithing and it was at that church in 1977 I made a decision to tithe. Why? I embraced it as an act of responsibility. My new church taught it as a Kingdom principle - tithes and offerings were the way God conducted his affairs. I'll never forget Pastor Oxley talking on this subject one night in Bible School. "The Kingdom of God is not financed by bingo nights, raffles, and cake stalls in the main streets. It is financed by the sacrificial giving of His people." Good stuff. The first two checks I ever tithed were large ones - my Superannuation cheque and my Long Service payout from the Education Department. That was where I started and I haven't stopped to this day - and I've never regretted it. I always felt the Pentecostal church I attended had a profoundly honourable approach to the issue of giving. (Some of the comments made on this Blog are so bitter and twisted about leadership and giving I feel sad for you. I've been part of 3 churches in my life and I'm grateful for all of them.) My Pentecostal church had a clear and strong teaching on tithes and offerings, yet I never once saw that teaching abused.
One great memory I do have was the night Pastor Hal Oxely told us our offering wasn't good enough. We had two world renowned Missionaries with us. One spoke first, an offering was taken for Missions, then the other spoke. At the end of the night Pastor Hal revealed the amount that had been given in the offering. It was a large crowd and a small offering. He rebuked the lot of us, reminded us these men had given their lives to see Christ preached in the most dangerous of situations, and blowed if he would stand by and see us respond with a pitiful offering and sent the bags round again. This time it was a great offering. Pastor Hal Oxley was an officer and a gentleman - and a friend to this day.
The Pentecostal church also got a lot more done than my Lutheran church had. They planted churches, supported missionaries, developed leadership - my self included. Fact is, stewardship is a great key to church effectiveness. Luke 16 in action.
In 1983 I left my Pentecostal friends to answer a call to Careforce Church (then known as Mt. Evelyn Christian Fellowship - A Church of Christ.) It was a great group of very interesting people. Many of them had been impacted by the Charismatic Movement of the 70's, as I had myself, and you could call them a Charismatic Church, but led by people who almost to a person had come out of main stream Evangelical churches. They had been wounded by the adultery of the previous pastor and had been without a pastor for nearly a year. I have been with them ever since.
By mid 1984 the church was growing and excited about its future, and plans for a building that had been under consideration prior to the fall of the previous minister were revived. I was the only one on staff, except for a one day a week typist. Most of the congregation knew about tithing, and we spoke about bringing our tithes and offerings to the Lord, but it wasn't a big thing and most people weren't doing it - you didn't have to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out what a ball-park tithe figure would have been given the size of our congregation of 300 - but no big deal.
A number of things came together in a single month that changed our destiny. The idea of building our own sheep shed. Looking at our "Tithes and Offerings" (joke) income, the expenses of my salary and other running costs, there was a surplus that could allow us to handle a mortgage of reasonable size so the project was a possibility. At the same time one of our Elders began sharing an encounter he was having with the Lord over India. With tears running down his face he was sharing with us Monday night after Monday night how he was being woken in the middle of the night, faces of lost Indian men, women and children calling to him, an aching burden in his belly for lost India and a sense that God was calling us to work with Him in that land. Then the visit of Juan Carlos Ortiz to Melbourne. He came to Life Ministry Centre, my old Pentecostal church, and taught a 6-night series on Tithing. He came to us out of the Argentinian revival - a revival of tithing had released the Argentinian church from its bondage to American Missionary Dollars and made the Argentinian church a power house of both revival and Missions itself.
I couldn't make it to any of the Ortiz meetings, but I bought the video tapes. I loved Johnny Ortiz - I'd first met him in 1974 and he is one of the most authentic and impacting Christian leaders I've ever known personally. I watched the tapes from front to back - and I have to say they upset me deeply. As he unfolded his case he said things I had never before heard explained. One of the sentences that impacted me - "It is not legitimate to use the Bible to encourage people to Tithe and then NOT use the Bible in determining the spending of the Tithe."
He went on to make a case which was clear and credible to me - that the first responsibility we have in our giving is to Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest - and His tithe is not for building buildings, ministry to the poor, or any other worthy project - it belongs to Christ for the release of men and women into His service. Another sentence that grabbed my attention - "To take the tithe and use it to build a building is misappropriation of finances. In some churches every brick in the wall represents a soul crying from hell because leaders built a building rather than sending workers into the harvest field."
I wrote out his ideas, looked up his scriptures, weighed what I was hearing and found myself very disturbed. What he was criticizing is exactly what we were planning to do - build a building and use the tithes to pay the mortgage. The conjunction of our building plans and his week of teaching was arresting for me. On the very day I was weighing this issue most heavily I also had a homework assignment for my Batchelor of Theology with BCV, an assignment on the book of Haggai. I put my tithing study aside and got down to my homework and found myself reading this OT prophecy:
(Hag 2:6) For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land.
(Hag 2:7) And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.
(Hag 2:8) The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts.
(Hag 2:9) The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.'"
Hebrews 12 identifies this OT prophecy as an end-times prophecy - about the coming of the Desire of all nations, about a house full of glory, a place where God gives peace. I think it's a prophecy about the church, a house made out of living stones, the only thing that won't be shaken in the end, a place where everlasting peace can be found. But right in the middle of that prophecy - the silver is mine, the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. Resonates with Luke 15 and 16. God's passion for a house made up of redeemed living stones, unshakeable - and right in the middle of it all - STEWARDSHIP - the gold and the silver have to be seen as HIS.
As I wrote out my homework assignment on this passage I sat in my study aware I was in the middle of an encounter with God - life and theology coming together like two great pincers and my heart in the middle under examination. I got up and went into the kitchen and stood in front of the wood stove, warming myself as I thought of all the issues that were confronting me. Then a very uncharacteristic thing - I lifted my hands in the air and began to prophesy.
It is a rare event for me, but a torrent of words began to flow through my heart and with it a surge of passion and pain for lost people - in that moment my emotions so identified with the cry of God for lost people, for Jesus and his tears of Jerusalem, for a gospel so wonderful yet still unknown to so many. With tears streaming down my face I found myself bellowing a prophetic word out over our church. The essence of that stream was this:
"If I could find a people who would be willing to build MY house, do you not know I am able to build THEM a house?"
In the midst of this torrent of words and passion I had a crystal clear sense of what we were being called as a church to do - dedicate our first tithe to Christ, determine not to use that money for anything else except providing him with workers, and trust God for the future as far as our own building was concerned.
That evening I called my elders together and told them what had happened to me that day. The Elders were unanimous in receiving it as a word from God for our church and so we called the Deacons in and shared it with them as well. They unanimously embraced it as a word from God. However the accountant said: "Do you realize what this means. If we go down this pathway we can't build our building. We won't have the money to pay for it." To a person my leaders agreed: better we never have a building than to have a call from God and ignore it. Good people.
We then called the church together one Thursday night. I played them about an hour of Johnny Ortiz and his teaching on video tape, then I shared with them what had happened to me and the concept that came with it. With the exception of one man the church embraced it as a word from God. The next Sunday we implemented a stand we have honoured to this day. We would separate our Tithes from our Offerings. The Tithe would be brought forward and kept for one thing - to release workers into the harvest. Later in the service we gathered the Offering and that we use for anything and everything else. We have continued in that practice to this day. We separate our tithes from all other offerings and apply the funds with deliberate focus.
The impact? The tithing of our church doubled that week. People now knew what they were tithing for and they were willing to embrace the responsibility of providing Jesus Christ with a people dedicated to planting churches, raising leadership, and equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. From the very beginning we determined to set aside 20% of our tithes to release workers overseas, with our eye in particular on India because of the emergence of a deep call to India in the heart of one of our Elders.
As the money began to accumulate we were able to release people into full time ministry. Some of those have now gone on to plant growing churches in our city and overseas. From the 20% dedicated to overseas work a plan emerged to call an Indian school teacher to become our Missionary at Large in Kakinada - our tithing fund was able to support him - and our first step into India was taken.
Within three months a plan was developed to rent a house and train young men to plant village churches with our man, Williams, leading a faculty of local church pastors. Williams was a brilliant young man with four degrees and a gift as an evangelist. In 1985 the first class graduated and 7 churches were planted in villages that had never had a Christian witness.
When we embraced the call to Tithing for Workers in 1984 we had to abandon our building plans. We left our own building plans on the shelf for the next 5 years and kept meeting in a High School auditorium. As the work in India was growing rapidly we decided to focus our financial guns on making the most of this open door. We took up offerings and purchased land in Kakinda and commenced to build what has become a magnificent campus. Within a few years nearly a hundred churches had been planted and with that growth came a series of commitments to add to the church planting thrust.
Firstly, the need to support orphans in the villages where churches had been planted. At first we did this via foster care but soon it became necessary to create well planned and staffed orphanages. Today we feed, clothe and educate nearly 2,000 children every day in our orphanages paid for by faith promises people make beyond their normal tithes and offerings.
Then it became clear we needed to help these orphans beyond the childhood years by helping them learn a trade. We built a Trade School. Hundreds of teens who have grown up through our orphanages are being educated and schooled in 8 different trades every day of the year.
As the work extended across the state of Andre Pradesh to other states we found it necessary to create new campuses for the training of church planters and pastors. We now have 5 different bases training and releasing men and women for this work.
The opportunity came to develop a medical arm to the work and today about 50 nurses work in teams in villages throughout the areas where we are working.
When I visited our India ministry for its 15th anniversary in the year 2000 I was surrounded by more than 8,000 men, women and children - all part of what is the most amazing and fruitful work I have ever seen. At that time we had planted close to 1500 churches.
Then in the past few years a further breakthrough. Our full time elder, Keith Greewood, was attending Jack Hanes Missions Conference at Penrith. On the way home God spoke to him and said "You could plant a thousand churches in one year if you would do things differently." God showed him the work we had done had created churches that were strong enough to become missionary churches themselves. Turn the churches into church planters. We currently have nearly 1500 men and women as full time workers in the field in India. They committed themselves to equipping the body and raise up leaders capable of planting a church. In a single year, in 2003-2004 we planted over 1,000 churches. We have done it again in the past 12 months. Nearly 4,000 churches are currently meeting in villages where no church previously existed. The challenge, however, is still finance. It takes money to plant a church, provide a salary for man and his wife and kids to dedicate themselves to the harvest field. If every believer in the Kingdom of God would at least tithe, there wouldn't be a missionary organization in the world that would be strapped for the funds to go where they need to go.
In one weekend, in Samalcot, our churches had a mass baptism of 5,000 new believers. It made front page news all over the state of Andre Pradesh. Two years ago we brought 27,000 new believers to Christ in a year. Not hands up in a meeting - new believers baptized and worshipping in a local church. Last year we saw 30,000 new believers come to Christ in a year.
Of course we aren't carrying all this load alone. Numbers of churches have joined with us in this adventure.
That's enough for one day, except to say this. When churches make a decision to tithe and dedicate the tithe to the release of labourers the job gets done. I thank God for His encounter with me in 1984. I thank God that I had a leadership willing to respond to the call. That one decision has changed our destiny as a church, it has released thousands of workers into Kingdom life, it has demanded of us an obedience to a call that hasn't always been easy, but it has been fruitful.
I haven't even explained what it did for us as a local church. Maybe I'll do a small post on that tomorrow.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 28-Sep-2005 03:00
17 comments Comments on this post...
28th September 2005Lionfish
Allan, Good Post. And I commend you on your good works.
I do though think you sell way too the short people and their own achievements and continuing contribution to the Christian world in your old denomination throughout far too short. In fact, like the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church is growing phenomenly in Africa and Asia at this momment...by the Grace of God and therough the gerenerous and freewill gifts of it people. It also has schools, hospitals, programmes, missions to aboriginals with the disdavantaged - all funded without the compulsion of the tithe.
You have still failed to demonstrate through this debate the obligation or command to tithe from the Bible, the eraly Church or refute what every credible Bible Reference/Encyclopedia has to say on the matter. You have aslo failed to apply the contextual principles for biblical interpretation that I requested at the beginning of the debate.
But like Sabbath observance to an SDA, it was always going to be one of those things.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 06:53
Allan Meyer
LF - I have nothing but thanks for the role the Lutheran church played in my life. They were good people and I will never cease to be grateful for the foundation they laid in me. I may address some of your hermenuetical principles tomorrow.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 07:02
Roger
Allan
Now THIS is what I really wanted to hear about. I enjoyed reading that and it speaks to my heart, not to my head.
Thank you
Roger
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 07:20
simple trust
Thanks again for your post this morning Allan. I have been very encouraged by your story! It is always great to hear of the things that God can achieve in his kingdom when his people give of their lives, their time and their money in a sacraficial and generous way. I love the way your church has a heart for mission and to hear of the commitment that was made in your early days.
"From the very beginning we determined to set aside 20% of our tithes to release workers overseas, with our eye in particular on India because of the emergence of a deep call to India in the heart of one of our Elders....We left our own building plans on the shelf for the next 5 years and kept meeting in a High School auditorium. As the work in India was growing rapidly we decided to focus our financial guns on making the most of this open door."
I agree that many of us live our lives far too selfishly, focussing our time and money on ourselves rather than the kingdom of God. May our wonderful God continue to inspire and challenge his church to love, serve and proclaim the gospel with reckless abandon and with a spirit of freedom because of his great love for us.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 07:35
micmac
I am proud to be a member of Careforce church. One of the great things about it is I trust my leaders. You are amazing Al, & I love serving God with you. I know the next part of the story intimately & I hope you share it Al; It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever been a part of in relation to giving
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 07:40
John
Alan,just read your no.8 post on tithes and offerings and wish to say I have been blessed and inspired by your series on the subject and I believe your teaching is Biblically sound.
My parents practised and taught tithing and I started with my pocket-money from childhood and have never looked back in some 50 years.
Your testimony, also, is a reminder that "God's Word works!". Eph.3:19 indicates that His intention is for us to have experiental knowledge as well as theoretical.
As an aside, my wife and I and kids were also enriched and encouraged by Hal Oxley and his church in the 70's. He/they "picked us up" at a time when we had been shattered by negative experiences in pastoring elsewhere.
Blessings!
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 08:11
Lionfish
Roger,
I am using this time to make some stewardship decisions concerning my own finances, "proportion that I decide to give", to whom and whom I will allow to be my own spiritual leader(s). I don't take this stuff lightly, and that is why I pressure test these guys and their beliefs.
Allan's story this morning is great and it appeals to the heart. But I personally will not let the tide of emotion, the power of charisma set adrift my heart from the anchor of my mind. This is where we have to put the emotions on hold.
Alllans experience is great - but the cults (eg. Mormons, SDA's, JW's etc, etc, etc) have also prospered and grown under the incorrect application of scripture, and personally I feel Allan still has failed to present a case which aligns with the truth presented in the scriptures and every orthodox Christian reference book, the fact that the Apostles always fought so hard to prevent people bringing them under Law (re-read Galatians), and he asserts that the Cross was a 'filter' through which some of the Law passed.
It's a dangerous thing to decouple the head from the heart and soul.
On the basis of what I have seen to date and what has been presented in the media (and some follow up work) would I invest my finances and life into this stuff?
Presently my answer is NO!
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 09:32
Roger
LF
Thank you for your concern.
I too am working through a process of how best to manage the finances I currently have under my stewardship. I came to this series with an open mind and was very willing to consider that my view (that tithing has no place in the NT church) could be wrong. I have read (and re-read) Allan's posts and got stuck into scripture and extra biblical material at each stage. I have also prayed (actually I did it first) for revelation should my eyes / heart be closed. I wanted to be challenged.
However, as I worked through it all I came up with too many inconsistencies, too many missing links, and too much selective application of scripture to be moved. I agree that no case has been made hermeneutically - and that's how we were asked to approach this.
I am therefore of the strong opinion that there is nothing scriptural about NT tithing, whether that is couched as "tithing under grace" or a law application of "tithing by command".
With that established, I am open in my heart to Allan's testimony and the journey he has taken with this. I agree that money we give should be directed towards those who need it rather than buildings or unnecessary expenses. With my heart open I cannot deny Allan's commitment to this. It is personal, he has acted in faith and he has obviously made a difference.
I have no information to hand to suggest that any of this is anything but legitimate but, if I was planning to join this church, I would do a thorough investigation first. I would also certainly do some serious prayer and homework if I was planning to give into this ministry. However, based on the insistence on tithing, as established so far, I think that is unlikely.
I am still enjoying the testimony though.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 10:17
simple trust
Good post Roger. Couldn't agree more!
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 11:29
Cyril
Crucified to the Religious World by T. Austin-Sparks
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" Galatians 6:14
It is interesting to notice the particular way in which the Apostle speaks of the world here. That term is a very comprehensive term and includes a very great deal. Here Paul gets right down to the spirit of the thing. You notice the context; it is well for us to take account of it:
"For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh" Galatians 6:13
What does the Apostle mean? They want to say, "See how many proselytes we are making! See how many followers and disciples we are getting! See how successful our movement is! See what a power we are becoming in the world! See all the marks of Divine blessing resting upon us!" The Apostle says that is worldliness in principle and spirit; that is the world. He sets over against this his own clear spiritual position. Do I seek glory of men? Do I seek to be well-pleasing to men? No! The world is crucified to me, and I to the world.
All that sort of thing does not weigh with me. What weighs with me is not whether my movement is successful, whether I am getting a lot of followers, whether there are all the manifestations outwardly of success; what weighs with me is the measure of Christ in those with whom I have to do: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Galatians 4:19). Christ formed in you - that is my concern, he says that is what weighs with me... not extensiveness, not bigness, not popularity, not keeping in with the world, so that it is said that this is a successful ministry and a successful movement. That is worldliness. I am dead to all that; I am crucified with Christ to all that. The thing that matters is Christ - the measure of Christ in you.
You see how the world can creep in... and how worldly we can become almost imperceptibly by taking account of things outwardly - of how men will think and talk, what they will say, the attitude they will take; of the measure of our popularity, the talk of our success. That is all the world, says the Apostle, the spirit of the world; that is how the world talks. Those are the values in the eyes of the world, but not in the eyes of the risen Christ. In the new creation, on the resurrection side of the Cross, one thing alone determines value... and that is the measure of Christ in everything. Nothing else is of value at all, however big the thing may be, however popular it may be, however men talk favorably of it; on the resurrection side that does not count a little bit. What counts is how much of Christ there is.
You and I in the Cross of the Lord Jesus must come to the place where we are crucified to all those other elements. Ah, you may be unpopular, and the work be very small; there may be no applause, and the world may despise; but in it all there may be something which is of Christ, and that is the thing upon which our hearts must be set. The Lord gives us grace for that crucifixion. There are few things more difficult to bear than being despised; but He was despised and rejected of men. What a thing is in God's sight must be our standard. That is a resurrection standard. Now that is the victory of the Cross: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world".
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 11:58
nilmot
Well needless to say, I agree with Lionfish, simple trust and Roger.
Allan ,I felt that most of your arguments were far from convincing and I do feel that what you are teaching goes against the spirit of the NT.
Early on in this discussion, Lionfish, made the point about the SDA's approach to the Sabbath as being similar to this. I agree, all manor of things can be convincingly argued using similar hermaneutics. LF also talked about the possibilities of multiple wives, Allan got a little annoyed at this and challenged LF to make his case.
Well if I wanted to waste a lot of time I could use Allan's approach to create a Christian doctrine of slavery. I could talk about unbroken streams of pregnant biblical truth of endless dimension. I could give personal testimonies, I could use OT narratives, I could use sarcasm and talk about the church not giving up it's Jewishness overnight. I could quote LOADS of scripture including the NT, in fact I think a more convincing argument could be made for NT slavery than for tithing.
For the Scriptures clearly state that "you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you.... they may become your property.You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. "
(Lev 25:45-46)
Now the Apostles are the infallible interpreters of the OT, so what will they tell us about slavery? will they reject it utterly? Will they signal that slavery is now finished? NO on the contrary Paul clearly says "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling,"(Eph 6:5)
I will not go on, but you get the picture.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 18:49
Art Vandelay
I am very inspired by your testimony Allan and look forward to hearing your local church testimony and what happened to the building plans.
I always thought that tithing was a necessity for every believer and am going through a financial crisis right now and have wanted to make sure that I am doing every thing God requires from me.
It is so tempting to increase my giving as a statement of faith on my behalf but I now really think that this is very shaky ground. Why do I encourage others to not look to themselves and what they are doing (be it good or bad) but to look solely at the finished work of Jesus and then try and save myself.
There are two religions in the world 1) based on salvation by meritorious works and 2) salvation by grace. Christianity is the only religion that teaches salvation solely by grace through faith alone. (A few others claim it, but either the claim is invalid or the doctrine is not held in a Christian sense.)
I am not a bible scholar but if God wanted to make a big deal out of tithing for the New Covenant believer, dont you think He would have laboured the point emphatically through out the New Testament. So many opportunities to clearly point out the necessity to the new Gentile believer. Some would argue that the silence is deafening. Just because the Jews knew about tithing doesn't mean they all tithed, wouldn't there have been a need to remind the Jewish convert to tithe as well.
Anyway Jesus is Lord thats all I need.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 21:57
Pee
Interesting interesting convo going on here! Do we all agree that as Christians we are not under law anymore but under grace? Is tithing not an OT law? So obviously as Christians we are under no obligation to tithe...the NT doesnt mention tithing but does say that we should give as we have decided in our hearts...so even though I have been tithing for a while...after discovering these new truths I am convinced that tithing as 'a must' is not scriptural at all in this NT age. I'm buying into giving into my local church as I have decided and as the Lord leads and the only reason why I will continue to give is because I believe in what my church is doing and not because I think I'm robbing God if I don't tithe...Why are we worried that if people don't give their 10% there will be no money coming intot he church...who are we depending on anyway...God or people? And don't we also always say to others that God will supply all our needs according to His glorious riches in Jesus Christ? Why can't we believe that for God's house? God will supply...let's just continue to preach the true Gospel and take things as they really are! Galatians 3: 24 says 'And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.' As for tithing I will quote Galatians 5:1 which reads 'Freedom is what we have-Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.'
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 23:22
29th September 2005John
Man! This debate has grown into something "bigger than Ben Hur" hasn't it?!
Maybe it is time to "chill out" and get back to the principles of Col.2:16,17 and Rom.14:1-8.
We will not all agree on this (and some other topics) before Jesus comes. While sound Biblical doctrines are very necessary, I think it tremendously important that we do not become distracted.... from doing what Jesus left us to do.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 09:16
Cyril
A kind word for you Art Vandelay:
1 John 3:2a Beloved, NOW are we the sons of God..
Art, perhaps approach the Father like this, " Father, you have purchased me with the blood of your Son, therefore I am indeed your son. Now teach me to live in the faith of your Son Jesus : the faith of sons. Father please show me every place in my life where I have related to you mechanically/impersonally through the law and through dead tradition. I believe that all my past till now is irrelevant : what I have done, or have failed to do, it is all irrelevant now as I stand before you clothed in the righteousness of your Son. Please deal with me as a son for I truly am your son because of Jesus. Help me to live only for you, by faith, as your loving and obedient son".
Another point: If you are a father you will know how your sons should relate to you. You know when they honor you and you also know when they dishonor you. As sons of God we should also know what type of faith honors Him. And, from your post I sense you are already awakened to the difference between grace and law : grace is a living relationship : the law (though Holy) is an impersonal formula. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The law was given to show us we are wrong, (diagnosis of the disease), and was not given for our justification , (it is not the cure, not the answer).
The way out of whatever mess we find ourselves in, whether it be broken relationships or financial crisis etc. , is NOT by law, it is by the faith of sons.
And only by living IN the Son do we fulfill the law, as in, pleasing the heart of the Father.
You probably already know this!
www.youareallbrothers.com
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 10:13
Chrissie
I think Allan's testimony is amazing. It is soo true that it ALL belongs to Him anyway. The part in his essay about the bricks being like souls crying out really touched my heart. Also the part where he quotes "it's better to spend 90% with His blessing than 100% without" really spoke to me too. But sadly I find myself in a rather difficult situation with tithing and offering. You see my husband is not yet a Christian and has no conviction about tithing. Occasionally he might give the $10 bucks in his pocket if he happens to come along with me. It makes me feel sad and secretly I think "just keep your small change". I know thats not really right, I'm working on having a better attitude. I give what I can from what I earn. It's a meager $450 a week. So $50 of that always goes to God,just slighlty more than the 10%. All of the rest goes on childcare and kitchen repayments (for our new kitchen).There's nothing left after than for me to do any giving. I used to be able to give quite frequently. Now I constantly constantly receive all the giving mail (it wouldnt be fair to name all the organisations). Every single one makes me feel bad because I just cant manage it. I have to toss them away. I read them sometimes but it pangs me that I can now longer give very much to any organization. I have access to my husbands credit card for groceries and petrol but it would not be right to use it for giving without his permission. We do have a sponser child in India and he is okay with that but thats the extent of it. Sometimes we experience difficulties in areas of house hold maintenance often related to finances and every time I just have to think "its because we are not giving as a family in the way that we should." What can I do? God has to change his heart on that 'cause I cant.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 23:04
30th September 2005Art Vandelay
God bless you Cyril that was a real blessing.
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 16:03
28th September 2005Questions on my view of Tithes and Offerings
Over the past 8 days lots of questions have been asked of me regarding how I apply my view of Tithes and Offerings in our own church context.
I was going to go back and pick them up and try to give an answer to each one. I'm on holiday and its too big a job.
If you have an unaswered question you would like me to address in tomorrow's post ask it here as a comment. Try to keep it short. I'll do my best to give my answer to each one.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 28-Sep-2005 04:00
7 comments Comments on this post...
28th September 2005simple trust
I can't believe that after all the time you have put into these posts and after some of the frustrations you have shared along the way that you are still willing to respond to unanswered questions. Thanks again, and here are my questions which are interrelated:
Why is the NT encouragement for generous giving under grace not enough for you? Do you believe that if the freedom to "give as one has decided in their heart" was taught by the leaders in your church that the ministry of your church would suffer? If so, does this not imply that in some way the people in your church are being coerced to give more than they would otherwise give? (I wonder whether the giving could possibly even increase as it seems the people in your church have a real heart for mission and have a desire to give generously anyway.)
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 09:05
Daniel
Allan, when missionaries are sent out with the support of the tithe, does the principle of tithing also apply to them? Did the levites tithe?
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 09:27
paddo
Hi Allan,
truely inspirational, your testimony, wow!!
I did post 4 questions previously but i'l re-post two of them here.
3) Hillsongs (and others?) put Malachi 3:10 on the inside of their offering and tithing envelopes, but according to you, it should be 1 Cor 9 (14?). Surely putting this OT scripture on the inside of these envelopes is encouraging the 'giving to get' prosperity doctrine, not the stewardship/ support doctrine that you have introduced?
5) Have you found more examples of the COMMAND in the NT?
cheers bro
paddo
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 10:05
JeffTyler
It always amazes me how testimony is more convincing than arguement and discussion.
My response to Daniel would be: yes the levites had to tithe... i just read that passage again recently...
The thing with Christianity, is that we are called to live by the spirit. (often we discern which spirit is God's one by comparing it with the word, the more faith we have in the word-faith comes by knowing/believing- the easier to discern whether the spirit talking to you is God's spirit)
The thing with Church, is it has to provide guidelines. I hope that if i went up to the church leaders of the last two churches i was invovled with and said 'hey, i know that you preach a min. of 10% for tithe, but believe the spirit is telling me otherwise...' they would say to me, 'Have you run this revelation through the 'word'? ie. made sure it was alligned with the word. They would then express that people do have specific revelations that are specifically for their circumstances. and hopefully end with 'i will pray for you, and you pray for me. God should sort us both out...'
peace out-side
keep up the God work...
J.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 16:47
stormy
Allen, I have enjoyed reading your posts and the subsequent hearty discussion. I am all for tithing, but not so sure about the three levels of tithing, especially in a "post new testament" context. I am interested to understand why there needs to be a distinction between tithes that 'belong to God', and tithes that are to be given to the poor etc. Why is it necessary for a difference between honouring Jesus in caring for the poor and honouring people who are 'doing God's work'? Is not all money that is sown constructively and prayerfully into the Kingdom honouring to God, and useful for the advancement of the Kingdom? I feel that this distinction is uneccessary. Obviously, people who God has called to serve by pastoring etc need to be supported at least to some extent financially. However, there is nothing wrong with a little tent-making on the side, to allow funds to go into other things, and to keep the person in ministry grounded in the community. This view also assumes that all of "God's work" is done by the lead pastor(s) and I am not so sure that is the case. I also applaud your decision all those years ago to not sink money into a mortgage for a church building. I think that it is much better to sink money into people rather than buildings. The Kingdom of God is not housed in a building.
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 17:29
stormy
Hi Allan - sorry I spelt your name wrong!
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 17:31
nilmot
Don't worry, your not the only one stormy, I did it numerous times throughout the disscussion... Apologies ALLAN :-)
Posted: 28-Sep-2005 17:50
29th September 2005Tithes & Offerings Discussion - Answers to Questions
Flip, have we given this a belting or what? I'm exhausted even if you aren't. Still, I said I would answer questions so here we go. I'd love to meet you guys and TALK about this subject in a context where points could be worked through to conclusions, but this format makes such a thing very difficult. Still, we had a go.
Summary of question by Paddo: "Should the tithes be used for the workers of the local church only, or can tithes be used for Missions?"
Answer: I take the view that Christians have Kingdom responsibilities which include giving to Christ for the purpose of providing Him with a workforce, and giving to Christ for things that show the love of God to the world in other ways.
I take the view that the first 10% belongs to Christ as Great High Priest for the purpose of releasing labourers into the harvest. I think where they do their work is irrelevant. We started by putting aside 20% of our tithes for labourers outside our own community. We later increased that to 25%. As the work in India exploded 25% wouldn't cut it and our own church development was being hindered by not being able to release full time workers in some areas. So we reduced our allocation of Tithes to 10% and we dedicate one month each year to informing our church of the potential of our overseas missions and invite them to commit beyond the giving they make locally to see Christ brought to the Nations. I think you can give as much as you like to Missions and anything else you want to give to, but I hold the view that the first tithe belongs to Christ for his workers, wherever they do their work.
Question from Paddo - Hillsong (and others) put Malachi 3:10 on the inside of their offering and tithing envelopes. Is this encouraging the 'giving to get' prosperity doctrine, not the stewardship support doctrine that you have introduced.
Answer: I seek to make it my practice not to judge someone else's servant. It's not what I would put on my envelope simply because my journey with God on this issue has unfolded with the highlights coming from different insights. There are plenty of people who don't like what I've unfolded, but those who have walked this road together with me at Careforce have confidence we are fulfilling our calling and being true to both Bible and God encounters. I'd like to hear Hillsong do the explaining of their journey and the convictions that lead them to teach what they teach. From where I stand I think Hillsong are fulfilling their calling too, so you won't find me wanting to judge someone else's servant.
I would remind you of two things - it is a passage from the Bible. It's OK to print passages from the Bible on church giving envelopes. The legitimacy of the use of Malachi depends on the teaching that goes with it. Secondly, Jesus wasn't backward in attaching blessing to giving and neither was the Apostle Paul. It was Jesus who said "give and it shall be given unto you, good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over." I won't criticize Hillsong for making the same connection.
Paddo - my summary of the question. What about Malachi 3 - are you suggesting tithing from fear or from another motive?
Answer: The bit I would want to emphasize from Malachi 3 is "bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there may be food in my house." The tragedy is that too many Christians don't get near a tithe in their giving and they could if they embraced their responsibilities. The figures for the USA - another rich nation - 3% of Christians tithe. Consequence - churches aren't planted, Missionary organizations languish for support, programs that churches could be conducting all over the world don't happen, debt relief and works of compassion are not done. Since Christ has redeemed believers from the curse of the law I will not attach the word "curse" to the failure to give at least to the point of a tithe. There are some in this country whose circumstances make it very difficult to tithe. But that is not the situation for most. To those who could give to at least that extent and don't' I would attach the word, IRRESPONSIBLE. I tithe, and I teach our people to tithe as an act of Christian responsibility. As the Levites were sustained by a tithe of Israel, I maintain the Christ deserves a tithe of the church for his own labourers. I gladly embrace my responsibilities as a believer. Having fulfilled that responsibility I move on to other responsibilities - to give as unto the Lord what I have determined in my heart to give for the thousands of things a person can give for in honouring the work of Christ in the earth. My motive is responsibility stirred by gratitude. Fear doesn't even enter the picture.
Daniel - Allan, when missionaries are sent out with the support of the tithe, does the principle of tithing also apply to them?
Answer: I think all of us need to embrace the call to giving no matter who we are. I see myself as a Missionary in a pagan Australia. As I am supported so I want to be part of the support of others and the whole journey of giving. I would encourage the embracing of the principle by everyone.
Stormy - I am all for tithing, but not so sure about the three levels of tithing, especially in a "post new testament" context. I am interested to understand why there needs to be a distinction between tithes that 'belong to God', and tithes that are to be given to the poor etc. Why is it necessary for a difference between honouring Jesus in caring for the poor and honouring people who are 'doing God's work'? Is not all money that is sown constructively and prayerfully into the Kingdom honouring to God, and useful for the advancement of the Kingdom?
Answer: My simple answer would be "Yes, all money sown constructively and prayerfully into the Kingdom is honoring to God and useful for the advancement of the Kingdom." Sometimes in a membership class someone will put this question to me. "I have been giving my tithe to a Missionary in the field. Do I have to stop doing that if I become a member here?" My answer to them usually goes like this: "That is an appropriate way to give a Tithe and you will always be encouraged to live your conscience while you are part of our church. If you have a conviction that your tithe needs to be directed in that way go ahead. But could I ask you to consider what would happen if that became the standard way Careforce Church gave their tithes. No Schools ministry because we can no longer release the team to do the work. No Careworks team out there in our community because we can no longer release the team to do the work. No Missions team because we can no longer release the team to do the work ...Etc." What makes an effective church a potent force in its community is the focus of resources that allow a vision and mission to be pursued. I can understand people not wanting to invest significant giving in a church where nothing seems to be happening of a Kingdom advancing nature. Live your conscience. But don't forget that Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest, he is building a church, he does it from heaven by the release of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. The point of the first tithe is to provide Him with his workforce. "The harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few. Pray the Father that He will send labourers out into the harvest." If we neglect that aspect of Kingdom Building it is not as helpful for advancing the Kingdom as you might hope.
I don't mind stating how I do my own giving. I think there is a precedent in the NT for leaders being willing to state publicly the approach they personally take to giving. I give my first tithe to Careforce Church. Our leadership are committed to ensuring that the first tithe is used for workers to be released. 10% of that is committed to our Missions ministry. Then I give a second tithe to Missions. Beyond that I personally support Missionaries in Wycliffe. Then I make a regular contribution to the Careforce Offerings which can be used for anything. Then I make a commitment through our Kingdom Builders to the capital development of our church. After that I give offerings as often as I think there is something I need to be part of. My current level of giving is something a little more than 30% of my salary. It isn't higher at the moment because I have a responsibility to my wife's future, so I'm also involved in ensuring that she is financially secure in the event of my early death. As I get older and I have more of the bases covered I expect my giving to continue to rise because I am a rich Australian with Kingdom responsibilities. I do not expect anyone else to take me as their benchmark.
Question: Why is the NT encouragement for generous giving under grace not enough for you?
Answer: My entire view of NT giving is that of generous giving under grace. My entire view is that of giving "as I have decided in my heart". However, the decision I have made in my heart is informed by more than one passage of the Bible.
What you are asking again is why 2 Cor 8 & 9 doesn't constitute my entire view of NT giving. At the risk of being repetitious - it's because the NT has more to say on the subject than this one passage. If 1 Cor 9 was not in the NT I would ignore it, but it IS in the NT so I don't ignore it. You responded to my view on 1 Cor 9 by referring to Jesus expectation of support for his workers recorded in the Gospel of Luke. A valid observation. However, from my perspective I think the text of 1 Cor 9 is being ignored. When Paul refers to the command Jesus gave concerning his workers he doesn't go to Luke for his authority, he goes to the Law, quotes directly from Numbers 18 and draws a PRINCIPLE from OT financing of the Levites directly into a NT context.
I don't see 2 Cor 8 & 9 as an overriding revelation, I see at as a complimentary revelation, so I put the two together and embrace both of them. One deals with the support of workers, the other deals with compassion for the needy - two different issues, both of which must be honoured. I would thus ask the question in reverse - what is it about the concept that is so hard to embrace? The two passages deal with two different issues - embrace them both.
Question: Do you believe that if the freedom to "give as one has decided in their heart" was taught by the leaders in your church that the ministry of your church would suffer? If so, does this not imply that in some way the people in your church are being coerced to give more than they would otherwise give?
Answer: this form of discussion is so inadequate. The issues inherent in this question run in more than one direction. If people are told they have responsibilities as Christians to help provide Jesus Christ with a workforce as well as acts of compassion will that create a degree of pressure within them to give? - I hope so, because it's true, and when we don't fulfill our obligations we feel guilty. Guilt is a motivator to moral people. When people know what the obligations and responsibilities of discipleship are will they give more than if they don't understand what their obligations and responsibilities are - I would imagine so. And that's exactly as it should be.
In reframing your question I may no longer be addressing what you want me to address but let me add this on the 2 Corinthians passages.
One of the world's great young New Testament theologians, Dr. Craig Blomberg, preached a message at Careforce Church one week before we were to take up an offering to purchase 25 acres of land next door to our current church property. His text - 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.
I found his message extraordinary. He pointed out that in his view this is one of the most "manipulative" passages on giving in the Bible. Paul didn't hesitate to create a huge guilt trip for the Corinthians. First he compared their giving to the giving of the Macedonians. Imagine if Brian Houston did that at a Hillsong conference - "You guys are a bit disappointing in your giving tonight. We were in New Zealand last week and they gave a much bigger offering than you blokes - you ought to take a long hard look at yourselves." Imagine the howls of outrage from many quarters - "How manipulative, put everyone under a guilt trip, that's not grace!" Well, that's exactly what Paul does in 2 Cor 8. "The Macedonians are as poor as church mice and they begged us to let us give, then they gave like you wouldn't believe. If the Macedonians make the trip with us and see you guys aren't finishing what you started, boy will you guys be embarrassed." Craig Blomberg in his message unpacked the degree to which Paul used a combination of guilt and encouragement to inform the decision the Corinthians were about to make. Quoting Craig: "The Bible sometimes uses guilt as a motivation for us to do what is right, and that is an entirely appropriate thing to do - it's FALSE GUILT we are never to visit on God's people."
By all means, all giving in the NT is done "as it is purposed in your heart", but that doesn't mean an uninformed purposing. Inform disciples of their responsibilities - if that makes them feel guilty as rich Australians shirking their responsibilities - let appropriate guilt do its work.
The week following Craig Blomberg's message we had another encounter with God over our giving. For 5 weeks we had been preaching a vision for the future and August 21st, 2000 was to be the Sunday we would take an offering to purchase land. That week the Indonesian church was in crisis with Poso under attack and many Christians had their homes burned down and were living like animals as refugees and in fear of their lives. On the Wednesday night prior to the weekend we held a prayer meeting for Indonesia after a day of fasting and prayer. God began to speak gently to my heart about the coming offering on the Sunday. At first I felt as if He was asking me to give some of the offering away to Indonesian believers in their suffering. By Friday I had come to the place where I was contemplating giving half of the special offering to Indonesia and keeping half to help with the purchase of the land.
Saturday morning I rose early to do my devotions and my reading just happened to be about Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac. By the end of my early morning devotion I was disturbed to think God was asking for the whole offering - it's not easy to sacrifice half of Isaac. All day long I waited on God in prayer and on a few occasions the presence of Jesus drew near to me in such a way that melted my heart. Without hearing any words, and without being able to explain to you how I was hearing what I was hearing, deep in my soul I felt Jesus commune with me "Allan, morning by morning my people are crying out to me for help, and I need you to be that help."
Each time it happened I lay out on the floor and bawled like a baby - my heart just melted away inside me - and all I could say in response was "Jesus, you can have anything you want." Later that day I called my Elders together and told them what I was experiencing. Again, they received it unanimously as the word of the Lord to us in our situation.
When the congregation came together the next day for the big miracle offering I had a very unexpected message. I told them about Abraham and Isaac - being called to lay the future on the altar. I told them what I felt Jesus was asking us to do. I never saw grown men sob openly in church as I did that day. People embraced the opportunity to give. It was the largest offering we have ever taken in one day $270,000. We gave it away to our Christian brothers and sisters suffering in Indonesia. It just so happened that the contract on the land fell through some months later and we wouldn't have been able to use it anyway.
People came to Christ that day in ways that were just miraculous. My point - my message is not just about Tithing, its about generous giving of every kind. I am convinced that Christians have a basic responsibility to tithe - but that's not the end of the giving, it's the beginning. When we do amazing things happen.
Posted by: Allan Meyer at 29-Sep-2005 03:00
26 comments Comments on this post...
29th September 2005Nation
Allan,
Thank you for the teaching and I agree 100% with all you say.
More importantly, it is true to the Word.
Thanks
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 04:04
Lionfish
Allan,
Thanks. Would be good to catch up, maybe over a beer. You have my contact details (under separate cover)...please though, go rest and relax - just get well away from this stuff.
Personally, I will not even read the questions and answers until atleast the weekend.
I also think that we should work through Galations Chapter by Chapter from the message version...may be once per week.
We remain free!
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 06:12
simple trust
Thanks for your responses to our questions Allan. I could respond to your responses but then this blog would never end so I want to conclude simply by saying thankyou. Thanks for responding to God's call on your life to advance the kingdom of God. Thanks for having the guts to present your views on this "touchy" topic in this open forum. Thanks for taking the time to not only present your views but to get involved in some of the discussion.
My final request: you are a high profile leader Allan with a large Church and a lot of responsibility. You command a lot of respect and carry a lot of authority. You stated in your very first post, "I lead a church. I teach people things about church life. If I misunderstand issues central to church life the consequences are more than significant; the Bible warns not everybody should step into the role of "teacher" since those who teach will be judged with a greater strictness."
Sorry, getting to my request. Please stay humble before God Allan, with a genuine willingness to change your views and stances if convicted to do so by God and in submission to his word. Your willingness to give away a large offering to people in Indonesia rather than towards a previous commitment to land I think expresses something of this willingess to remain open and broken before God. I will look forward to chatting with you in person one day. Until then, "watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim 4:16. May God continue to bless you and your church in all things to the glory of Christ Jesus!! Over and out.
Andrew
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 07:10
Roger
I'm done with this topic too. Thanks Allan. Perhaps we could now do a verse by verse study on Leviticus -(just kidding!)
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 07:11
Roger
... and if we're getting together for a beer, count me in. My shout.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 07:14
rollsy
Allan, thanks for the series of posts.
As I wrestle with developing and improving my own theology (no doubt a life-long process), I am often challenged by the reality of someone's personal testimony.
After all, theology is an attempt to solidify in our minds something that is not tangible. But a hearing a testimony can have the effect of trying something vicariously through another person to guage its reliability. In that sense, you give some "solidity" to the "intangible".
We've all stated numerous times how scripture can be multidimensional and represent potentially opposing schools of thought. While I remain "undecided" on the issue for now, I want you to know that I find your testimony encouraging... and the most powerful part of your argument.
Thanks again. I always like to hear thr thoughts of people who are sincere, passionate and driven not by personal agendas but by a higher purpose.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 07:27
rollsy
If Roger's buying then I'll have a beer too.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 07:32
Theological Detectiv
ditto ST
I have been thinking on your posts over the last week or two and think that a in depth study of Galations is a good idea
Thanks Al
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 08:30
Michael
Thanks Allan - it's been a good series and discussion to have. I have enjoyed reading through your posts and all the comments day by day. I have found it challenging and enlightening and providing plenty of food for thought. I am also aware - at least to an extent - the personal cost involved in what you have done here, and thank you for your courage, leadership and grace.
Thank you.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 09:04
Subiaco
I have scan read most of the comments on the tithing issue and it really has shown up a lot of peoples attitude to 'their' money.
Bottom line is that giving is not about amount or percentage it is about the heart.
The widow in the NT gave a mite but more than that she gave out of a generous heart and gave probably a greater percentage than 10% or a 'tithe'. Why restrict yourself to 10%?? Why not 20%?? What is the point of putting a fixed percentage on your giving. If you restrain your giving because the pastor may end up driving a BMW, could that not mean you have a jealous heart and not a generous one??
When I get to heaven I am not going to be asked what style of car I drove but will be asked about my heart attitude to Jesus and that is what is vitally important.
Cultivate a generous heart guys and give because you love to and can bless someone else. My christian community in Fremantle deliberately goes out into the community and gives God's love by blessing people with gifts for no other reason than to tell people that God loves them. Stand at a parking meter and put money in it and pay for someones parking or pay for everyone's coffee in the cafe - yes even if Phil was there we would, and then just observe the delight on peoples face as they realise that they received an act of kindness with no strings attached.
Try it and enjoy the experience, give because you want to not because there is a percenatge you need to achieve.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 10:10
halieus
They've been a good series of posts Allan. I've appreciated them, as well as the comments and the way you've revealed your heart and exposed yourself to scrutiny on this issue. Well done. I'm not convinced by your argument for a NT tithe but I've still learnt a few things and opened a few books and done a little study which is always good and worthwhile. Thanks for making a big effort, you certainly don't have a half-hearted approach and I'm sure God blesses and will continue to bless your generous heartfelt giving.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 11:03
Lionfish
Roger - I'll get the second round, rollsy the third... I know a great German pub, and I am sure that after a just few steins we will have Allan recalling all the words and singing "A Mighty Fortress IS My God" in harmony with us all. :-)
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 11:04
Luke
"Nunne danke alle Gott...."
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 12:09
Allan Meyer
Ich Kan da Words geschingen. Ya! Der Hymn is gut! Macht zwei pots mit der largeren und Ich bin mit you all.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 12:45
thought police
subiaco
your comments seem to be very in line with the previous comments on this series of posts, its not about the percentage but the heart. this is what LF Halieous Theo Detect and others have been saying. Grace not Law.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 13:13
Lionfish
Gutten stuff Al!
I must varn you zo, ve do have vays of making you talk! :-)
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 14:20
Luke
But....I know NARRRRZING!
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 15:03
nilmot
Hey Allan, although I have disagreed with you on almost every point, I hope I have not been too disrespectful to you as a person, if I have, it was not my intention and I apologise.
Though we may disagree even on this point, I want to say that to me (regarding the money issue) this really is about semantics. You believe in 10% minimum giving, I believe in generous giving. In most cases the result should be fairly similar. For most people, if they are honest to God and to themselves about giving generously, then 10% is probably a good place to start. Although I don't believe that this is a universal principal, for many Christians who live in absolute poverty, giving away 10% of their income to pay for Pastoral wages may well be foolish and irresponsible.
Well Allan, thanks for the time you have put into this, I think we have exhausted the topic. I'm not sure we would have gotten any further though, if we had done this in person, but who knows? .... Anyway that's enough from me on this topic.
Cheers
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 18:21
Lionfish
Nilmot, fellow Crusader on the Quest!
This has not been about semantics at all! But of the infinite distance between Law and Grace, and whether an itsy, bitsy, piece of Old Covenant Law filtered the Cross and is therefore binding on the Christian!
It may seem small and innocuous, but any heresy tolerated by the Church can cause more danger and distress than a polly waffle floating in a public swimming pool on a hot summers day.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 20:12
nilmot
Hey Lionfish!
My point about semantics was only about how it relates to how much money we should give. Allen may call what he gives "tithes and offerings" and I may call what I give "generous free-will offerings" Yet we may both well be giving a similar percentage of our income. I do agree with what you are saying about Law and Grace. I am not so sure if it is an entirely false-dichotomy.
Posted: 29-Sep-2005 21:04
30th September 2005Charlie
great job allan! i really value you the way you put so much time and effort into this blog. you musta spent ages typing all that stuff up. and it's not even your blog! your a real champion mate!
Perhaps it should be called AlanMeyer.Net instead. as i think Alan spends alot more time here than what Phil does... hehehe. jk phil.
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 03:47
micmac
All this talk about beer on a Christian website; I'm appalled
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 08:20
micmac
All this talk about beer on a Christian website; I'm appalled
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 08:20
micmac
Now if it were red wine, at least it would be more biblical; I'll have the Yarra Burn Shiraz thanks
Posted: 30-Sep-2005 08:22
3rd October 2005paul
As my modest contribution to the subject of tithing, here is a study I did awhile ago:
http://members.shaw.ca/bereanbunch/tithing.html
Posted: 3-Oct-2005 03:57
Lobby
Beer? someone say Beer?
We'll have to get allan down the belgium beer cafe in murray st, try a gullotine or two... if we can make it...
=)
Allan, really have appreciated your openess and testimony. I know there is always a risk when stating ones position on a grey area. (like creation theories... hmmm... BTW i'm with you on this one... Scientist arent that smart after all, mans wisdom is not even a match for Gods wisdom!) oops wrong subject...
Loved hearing how God has used you and careforce to touch so many. Makes me think maybe there is a role for RV to begin playing in missions in a greater way than current involement... but I am sure Phil has already picked up on that one... maybe?
Love your heart Allan. God Bless all you do.
Posted: 3-Oct-2005 12:02
20th October 2005Theology - Jesus and the Law 4
Notes from D. J. Moo "Law" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IVP: 1992), 450-461.
Matthew 5:17-48 ... 'Matthew 5:17-48 is the most significant passage in the Gospels for determining the relationship between Jesus and the Mosaic Law....Here we focus on verses 21-48 in which Jesus six times compares his teaching with what had been told to "the ancients." Many scholars are convinced that Jesus abrogates Mosaic commands in at least some of these comparisons.
'No abrogation of the Law occurs in the first two comparisons, but it is harder to know whether Jesus is expounding the true meaning of the commandments, deepening the commandments by extending them from the level of action to the level of attitude, or simply juxtaposing his own teaching with that of the Law. Against the first alternative, however, is the lack of clear evidence that the Decalog prohibitions of murder and adultery included prohibitions of, respectively, anger and lust as well. Jesus, while not necessarily going beyond the Mosaic Law and the scribal teaching (both of which prohibit anger and lust), goes beyond the actual commandments he cites' (455).
With regard to the comparison of Jesus' teaching with that of the OT on divorce Moo concludes, 'Jesus' teaching that an improper remarriage constitutes adultery goes beyond the OT. Clearly, Jesus is not simply expounding the Mosaic legislation regarding divorce; nor does the idea of "deepening" [the OT teaching] fit the circumstances very well. He goes beyond the Law in the seriousness with which he considers improper remarriages' (456).
With regard to the teaching of oaths and vows, Moo considers Jesus' intent to be not absolutely clear - is he intending to literally forbid all vows (which would be an abrogation of the law), or commending absolute truthfulness? Moo chooses the latter: 'The uncertainty about Jesus' intention should make us cautious about claiming an abrogation of the Law here. In any case, we see again that Jesus is neither expounding nor deepening the Law but juxtaposing his own (perhaps more radical) demand with that of the Law' (456).
'Of the six antitheses there is most agreement among scholars that the fifth, relating to the lex talionis (law of retaliation) abrogates the Mosaic Law. But this is not at all clear...Jesus does not question, nor does he uphold, this policy. He simply demands that his followers not use it as an excuse for retaliation. Jesus certainly goes beyond the demands of the Law, but he does not contradict it.'
With regard to the final antitheses ('You have heard it said, "You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy," but I say to you, ...') Moo correctly notes that this is not an OT saying (the second part, at least). Thus, he concludes, 'Jesus does not, therefore, abrogate the Mosaic Law by requiring love for one's enemy, but he does ask his followers to do something that the Mosaic Law had not asked the people of Israel to do: love one's enemy. Once more, then, Jesus' teaching transcends without clearly revoking the OT law' (456).
Posted by: Mike O'Neil at 20-Oct-2005 00:00
2 comments Comments on this post...
20th October 2005thebloke
The law to love one's enemies while not explicitly stated in the OT Law, is implicit in injunctions such as those found in Exodus 23: 4-5. And so, for others of the "You have heard... but I say to you" type instructions in Matthew 5. Rather than think that Jesus introduced a higher standard for the Law, I like to think that he did what he said he came to do: confirm the law. In other words, he re-affirmed the underlying message of grace and mercy that was the law. I wrote about these in my own blog. Here are two of the many posts on this topic: http://intheouter.net/2005/10/03/did-jesus-revise-the-law/ and http://intheouter.net/2004/11/08/the-heart-of-the-commandments/
I tend to think about this issue quite a lot because of my own dispensationalist beginnings. :)
Posted: 20-Oct-2005 13:17
Michael
Hey, Bloke, nice Blog. I have also been thinking about this issue for some time, with regard to what it means to be a follower of Jesus, the relation between justification and sanctification etc.
Posted: 20-Oct-2005 22:09