Circumcision vs. Tithing?
I may have caught myself in a logical "hole." I have used the argument that tithing was instituted before the Law was given to the Israelites, thus tithing is still in effect today. However, if that is the case, then would not circumcision still be a requirement because it was instituted before the Law was given as well. Yes, tithing was freely done by Abraham towards Melchizidek (a representative of God) while the circumcision was specifically commanded by God to Abraham. But does that change the dilemma? Also, in the New Testament, we see where circumcision was not to be put "around the necks" of the Gentiles. So which is it? Do we use the Old Testament to prove tithing, or do we look for New Testament passages?
And by the way, at this point, I'm still a pro-tither. But maybe I need to rethink some of my arguments.
Posts
’Tis Jesus’ precious blood
20 hours ago
15 comments:
Luke 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Certainly Jesus' emphasis was on judgment and love of God, but He did say (even in NT church times) they should not leave tithing undone. A command from Jesus is good enough for me.
I think the fact that tithing was instituted pre-law is more important in just proving it isn't limited ONLY to the law. Since the New Testament never prohibits it (as with circumcision), it is still in effect. Circumcision was time and again mentioned to have come to it's finish.
Tithing, being pre-law, makes it simply a matter of lordship. A persons willingness, like Abraham with Melchizadek, shows thier willingness to acknowledge that Jesus is lord over their finances.
I have preached it this way...I would rather live on 90% of my income with 100% of GOd versus 100%of my income with no help from God.
It isn't a matter of law tithing is a matter of lordship.
JamesCharles,
Good comments.
Big J,
I don't disagree, but how do you personally distinguish between circumcision and tithing? Just wondering.
That tithing existed before the law is a weak argument in proof of tithing in the New Testament era. The point apparently is that though the law was done away, since tithing existed before the law it was not done away and is still applicable for Christians today. But as you note, circumcision existed before the law (as did animal sacrifices and the sabbath), so its existence before the law doesn't provide proof one way on the other toward its propriety for today. Interestingly, and proof of nothing is particular, most Baptists I know seem to have abandoned the sabbath (except the Seventh-Day Baptists, of course) and animal sacrifices but generally continue the practice of circumcision (based on "health reasons", I suppose).
In answer to your questions, "Do we use the Old Testament to prove tithing, or do we look for New Testament passages" I would say the Old Testament is OK for examples if you find that the New Testament teaches tithing, but to establish a church doctrine of tithing one needs to look for New Testament passages.
The New Testament passages that specifically mention a tithe or tithes are:
Mt 23:23 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Lu 11:42 - But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Lu 18:12 - I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Hebrews 7:1-9 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
I'm not aware of any others.
To me the largest downfall of establishing a New Testament doctrine of tithing is not that it is completely unmentioned, but that the didactic passages in the NT on giving are strangely silent on it. The modern "tithing system" is substituted for the plain New Testament teaching on giving that is found in the New Testament, i.e., let every one of you lay by in store as God has prospered you, every man as he purposeth in his own heart, etc.
Robert,
What do you think about someone deciding that they should give a tithe (10%)? If this is just on a personal level, would it fall under the "purposeth in his own heart" category?
Yes, I believe one could purpose in his/her heart to give 10% -- or 15% or 20% or 5%, etc. The main difference in practice is that preachers who teach tithing as a command or tithing as "the place to start" is that they don't believe a person can purpose/give 9.999999% or less, but rather it must be 10% or above.
You asked the following question to me, "I don't disagree, but how do you personally distinguish between circumcision and tithing?"
Circumcision has to do with the removal of the foreskin from a males um er "member" usually done 8 days after birth according to jewish law and custom.
Tithing is the lordship principle of one acknowledging Christ as Lord over thier finances by giving 10% of thier income to His storehouse...today known as His Church.
I don't see how this was such a problem distinguishing between the two...they are really not related!
You know your my brutha from anotha mutha! Miss ya Bro!
Perhaps (just a guess Brother Matt), circumcision was given as a picture of day 8 - after salvation - getting rid of the excess in our lives, just as the animal sacrifice was a picture of God's gift of Jesus, the priest was a picture of Jesus' intercessory work. After Jesus died, the animal sacrifice was no longer necessary to show this, the priest position was fulfilled in person as well, the circumcision is now shown personally and in baptism's picture.
Tithing is, perhaps, giving to God of command, not merely a picture. It would, therefor, still be in effect. After all, "Following God's commands" shown by Adam is still in effect today, so too tithing may be.
Perhaps a fuzzy explanation, but it is clear in my mind (even if it isn't very strong.)
I still stand firmly on the NT command of Jesus and that's where I go to show why I believe in tithing, in addition to giving the offering (that which man has purposed in his heart). Someone asks me to prove they are separate, and I go to Malachi 3, to show men both rob God in tithe AND in offering. The offering is clearly that which man purposes in his heart, and the tithing is obviously God's command.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts (well, except for maybe BigJ...love ya man!). And yes, I can distinguish between circumcision and tithing, BigJ. Tithing is quite painful to the wallet...well, anyway!
To whom was Jesus speaking in Luke 11:42....the Pharisees. True, He was telling THEM the tithing "ought ye to have done."
That was a valid command for the Pharisees (or any Jew for that matter) until the crucifixion ("blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross..Col2:14).
The New Testament teaches free-will giving (not being stingy, but abundant and cheerful). The tithe, as an example, can help in purposing what to give.
That "not being stingy" part is directly from Hezekiah chapter 4 :)
Adrian,
I really like the thought of the tithe being an example in helping purpose what to give.
I guess it would be safe to say, that if we give freely, then at times we might not be led to give a full 10%, but as we grow and maybe as circumstances change, we may give much more than 10%. However, this would be a personal thing not a corporate thing. Would you say that sort of goes with what you are saying, Adrian?
JamesCharles,
However, having said all that to Adrian, I do have my own issue of the tithe and offering being two different things. That is what I've always been taught and actually taught myself. Now, I'm caught in a conundrum of trying to figure out this issue and be as Scriptural as possible.
To all,
Keep coming with the ideas and thoughts. (Okay, even BigJ can make more comments!)
The offerings ARE NOT that which is given above the tithe, but refer to the animal sacrifices.
From my understanding, the tithes and offerings ARE two different things (even though I've heard it preached otherwise).
AS I've said in another post, tithers are usually better givers than free-will givers (unfortunately). But punching a calculator to think we are pleasing God seems to be doing things "law-way."
If one gives both tithe and offering above and beyond, they are pleasing God. I have purposed a certain percentage above and beyond a tithe. Sometimes, I give well above it, some times I meet that bare minimum. Either way, I know God is pleased when I give with a cheerful heart.
The Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 passages are in context spoken to Pharisees under the law system. They are condemned for what they did not do, but not for what they did do in keeping the law (tithing mint, anise and cumin). This is not Jesus commanding His church to tithe.
Malachi 3 is a "traditional" support for modern advocates of tithing, especially for forming the idea of giving tithes (10%) and offerings (anything over and above 10%). The idea may vary from person to person, but generally I have heard it taught that the tithe is what we owe God and the offering is what we freely give to God over and above what we owe. An unfortunate "coincidence" in this passage is that God said you robbed me in tithes AND offerings. How so, if only 10% is what we owe? Also interesting in the context is that they did tithe -- in defective materials.
Going back to your original question, I think there is not only a logical problem with the "before the law" reasoning, I think there is also a need to look at the "before the law" incidents of tithing. There are two of which I am aware. Abraham won a military victory and tithed "of the spoils" of war, according to Hebrews chapter 7. Jacob made a vow to God to tithe. God did not ask him to do so. Jacob promised to give to God a tenth "of all that you shall give me". Unlike Abraham's tithe of the spoils this is a tithe of increase. Jacob’s promise was conditional -- "If God will...I will..." Jacob set the conditions, not God. To whom did Jacob give these tithes of all that God gave him? There was no Levitical priesthood and no tabernacle. He didn't give it to the pagan priests. He didn't send money up in a vessel to heaven. Probably he offered some or all of it in sacrifices (assuming he kept the vow, which I assume he did).
late to the party but anyway...
for those who imagine that the jewish laws were in effect until the crucifiction, i would beg to differ:
mark7:17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
so prior to the crucifiction, Jesus had already thrown out the food laws...but the mild commendation for the pharisees suggests that tithing was (and would remain) in effect.
2cor9:7 should be understood in the context of what paul was asking of the corinthian church: paul wanted the gentile churches to support the suffering jewish church in jerusalem. it was a specific offering for a specific purpose. to suppose that the gentile churches gave such an offering in place of their regular tithe to support their local ministers (after paul just explained to them in his previous letter - 1cor9:9"For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?") and their local poor is incredibly wrongheaded IMO.
if you are looking to the law for justification, there is a problem, yes. but looking at things in a "law-way" is absolutely a help for those who don't fear condemnation. (why else would Jesus and paul make so many commands?)
and tithing is a law like any other IMO. yes, you should give generously and you should love your wife. but if you don't want to give cheerfully and you start considering adultery, the law is there to show you the hardness of your heart and drive you to repentance and to ask for grace to help you back towards obedience.
Post a Comment