Ed Young Goes After Access to Bank Accounts of Church Members from FBCJax Watchdog on Vimeo.
What you say if I told you that the tithe, which is preached as gospel truth from most pulpits, like the one above, is not something a Christian is required to obey? Would say what one deacon did that he “didn’t care if it wasn’t in there, don’t give and watch you get you for it”.
It is rather interesting that the tithe is the least supported practice of the modern church today and at the same time the most hotly defended.
Defining terms
First, let’s examine what the tithe is.
In the Old Testament, there are actually 3 tithes, totaling 23.33%. Those tithes don’t all go to the storehouse (temple) as many preachers like to teach (by butchering Malachi 3:10).
Tithe #1
Numbers 18:20-30 – 10% was to be given to the Levites, because they had no inheritance in the land. (And the Levites had to give 10% of that to Aaron.) This was a tax under a theocracy.
Tithe #2
Deuteronomy 14:22-26 – 10% of the increase of crops or livestock to take to God’s specified place to worship (eventually Jerusalem) , to be consumed and drunk by the tither. If the way was too long to carry it there, then the tither was to sell it, get money for it, then go to the place of worship and “and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.” (v.26) This is a savings account for a pilgrimage.
Tithe #3
Deuteronomy 14:28-29 – “At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.” This is another tax under a theocracy. Amortized over 3 years. This is where the odd 3 and 1/3 figure comes from.
Not subject to the law
Christ fulfills the requirements of the law in the NT. So for the same reason we no longer sacrifice animals on alters or consider buildings as sacred or see the Levitical priesthood as being in effect, we no longer tithe to support a theocratic system of government. The temple no longer exists, so the whole concept of robbing it is rendered null and void.
Pastors who preach on the tithe may not be consciously lying to their congregations, they may just be ill or uninformed as to the facts.1 And the facts are simply that the tithe has not been reinstituted in the NT. And yes, the tithe would have to be reinstituted since in the OT the tithe was given to a specific place (the temple) to specific people (the priests) under a theocratic system or partially independent Jewish state as the case is in the NT until about 90AD when they were eliminated as a sovereign or even semi-sovereign state.
In the NT we are told that we are to give to the poor, the needy, etc. It may be the case that man-made organizations such as 501c3 non-profit businesses may do a good job of filling the needs of the poor and needy. However it is wrong to conflate the ekklesia or assembly of believers with either the temple of the OT (to which tithes were to be paid) or a building/man-made organization which is meant by most pastors who advocate tithing.
Not under compulsion
Finally, in the NT we are told that our giving should not be under compulsion and in accordance with what we’ve decided in our hearts to give per 2 Corinthians 9:7. A tithe, by contrast stands directly opposed to this sentiment as it is both compulsory (Malachi 3:8-12) and it is a specified amount (Numbers 18:26).
In the NT we are called to practice grace-based giving to those in need. While some may choose to give to organizations that can and often do meet the needs of those in need quite well, others don’t. Neither, however, are sinning in how they choose to spend their money. However it is wrong to assert that the tithe is still in effect today. Especially when what we are supposedly tithing to is 1. not the temple and 2. often horribly mismanaged and/or spent almost exclusively on infrastructure (like props for the big show on Sunday morning).
Framing the issue
A simple formula to remember when dealing with this subject is
tithe = compulsory = tax
The tithe is compulsory, that contradicts the clear teaching of giving found in the NT. The tithe is also a tax designed to support a political system that does not exist anymore.
Errata
1 Corinthians 16:2 tells us that we are to set some money aside “in keeping with his income”, “saving it up”. In modern parlance this would be in another personal bank account, like a separate savings account. “so that when I come no collections will have to be made” Begging for money was not a laudable part of the gathering of believers back then. Neither is it today.
Many proponents of the tithe also like to use regarding Abraham and Melchizedek, the King of Salem in Genesis 14:14-20. However the most you can draw from this section is that we should give once in our lifetimes and of that, only of the plunders we’ve accumulated in battle.
It is also worth noting that this collection mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:2 was for the persecuted church in Jerusalem. It was not for “the local Church” to keep and use on bigger buildings and more elaborate programs and presentations.
Conclusion
Tithing is an OT concept that has absolutely no place whatsoever in the NT. We are called to give graciously, not under compulsion. Tithing is a compulsory tax. The two are incompatible and pastors who preach that their congregations are obligated to tithe are either ignorant of the facts or are flat out lying. In either case they need to repent and stop fleecing the flock.
Additional resources
- Though this poses a problem in itself. [↩]
Tags: fleecing the flock, robbing god, tithe
37 Comments on What your pastor doesn’t want you to know about the tithe
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very good and mostly accurate.
If I may, I like to make a couple of technical corrections:
Tithe #2 is a tenth of the crops only, not livestock. But you were commanded to add the firstborn animals, but not a tenth of the animals.
The total of all three tithes = 20% over a 7-year period as follows:
Year 1 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) = 20%
Year 2 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) = 20%
Year 3 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) + 10% (Tithe #3) = 30%
Year 4 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) = 20%
Year 5 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) = 20%
Year 6 = 10% (Tithe #1) + 10% (Tithe #2) + 10% (Tithe #3) = 30%
Year 7 = 0% – the seventh year land sabbath
140%/7 = 20%
Wes, I sense from the comments in this article that there is something other than a teaching on the tithe issue going on here, maybe irritating the issue is how contributed dollars are being spent by leaders and how they ask for them? The Young rant seems way over the top but if his congregation approves it, I guess that is their choice. Glad I am not a part of it. Here are some thoughts I have from your article on the subject.
1. While you are right about 3 tithes, I am unwilling to call them a tax for several reasons:
First, if it was a 'tax', there would then be a regular forced collection. I don't recall there being any tithe collection enforcers in OT times. However, I had heard from a former Mormon that this went on in his Utah neighborhood!
Second, the OT does not call it a tax.
Third, the tithe was identified as their gift to God. Required by God but brought willingly. I guess, in a similar fashion, we are required by God to live a holy life but to do so willingly.
Fourth, Eli's sons were picking through the tithe and were rebuked for it. If it was a tax, I don't see how God could have it held against them for collecting it as they chose.
2. There are similarities to giving today as in the OT 'tithe' since it was to be used for the benefit of the faith community. They gave so that the worship of the community benefited everyone. Teaching and worship would be missing without the priest. In the NT the elders seemed to have been supported financially in Jerusalem so that they could study and pray for the community. NT missionary activity was also supported.
3. Paul indicates that he expected them to give to his work. We don't seem to have a rebuke in the NT for giving, for any reason. As a matter of fact, believers are always encouraged to give cheerfully. The teaching seems to be, if you don't want to give…keep it to yourself.
Here is how I look at the 'tithe' issue.
1. Tithers are marginal people…we have heaven waiting for us so let's give wherever we can help and use our money to assist believers and for every work that preaches Christ (even to pay for gyms for kids to hear the gospel at Upward basketball). I won't use my church's soccer field, gym, or lots of other stuff but someone will. I give my gifts for the faith community and the work of the Lord.
2. I sometimes don't like how funds are used in the local church but I have a few ways to look at that. if I don't like particular things, I don't give. If things are managed properly but I don't agree with the immediate goals, I give input then contribute trusting that my judgment may be off or need rethinking too. I have occasionally used poor spending choices and later made adjustments or correction. I will give leaders some space to do the same.
3. Giving is for more than the poor or widows. I don't see many 'programs' and 'events' paid for in the early church, but an undeveloped church under heavy persecution would not have those. As well, elders were provided for as well as missionary work. Also, the early church did end up building buildings to meet in as soon as they could…during a time of great theological development which we also adhere to.
4. As I mentioned, I don't always like how a local church spends money but my points of interest are not the only legitimate ones. I wish we did not have expensive buildings but then again, buildings that serve the larger faith community may be really cost effective tools for the advancement of the gospel.
In Summary, I would agree that we should rebuke and challenge preaching that bends or distorts any teaching on giving. I love it when I hear pastors give balanced calls for giving that does not benefit them or their immediate congregation. So, to help them, let's make them accountable for the way donated funds are used, discover how much we need to contribute to support our local fellowship, and let's be very, very generous in how we support our collective giving for Kingdom work wherever it is found.
"maybe irritating the issue is how contributed dollars are being spent by leaders and how they ask for them?"
Yes, it is. Asking for funds on a grace-based basis is not the same thing as obligating people under the legal system fulfilled in Christ. Additionally, asking for funds for a building and organization is not the same as helping the poor. They may help the poor but the question remains as to whether they are helping the poor in the most efficient manner. We are also obligated, under the impetus to "count the cost" to consider what exactly it is our money is being spend on, how it is being used, before we give it. I would argue that a call to blindly give without settling the question "to what" is not Biblical giving.
Mark,
You fail to recognize that the tithe in the Old Testament was NEVER from income. The crops and animals were the ASSETS of the farmers. The did have income from the sale and/or barter exchange of those assets, but they were not commanded to tithe on that income. Those ASSETS came from God's hand, not man's income.
There is absolutely no similarity between the tithing commands and giving. The tithe ONLY affected the twelve tribes of Israel. Eleven inherited the promised land, and they took the tithe to the twelfth tribe (the tribe of Levi) who inherited the tithe instead of the land.
The tithe was taken to the Levites as their inheritance, and they were required to keep up THE TEMPLE where THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVED. Now God's Spirit lives within our bodies. The Temple, itself, was not built from using free-will contributions.
The Old Testament Tithe is more similar to today's taxes than it is to giving.
The tithe had absolutely NOTHING to do with man, or income from man. It had to do with GOD, Himself. The tithe came from God's labor, not man's labor. There is a distinction between the two as evidenced in Deuteronomy 8:18. God gave us the ABILITY to function on our own, to work, to labor, to produce wealth. The tithe never came from OUR abilities given to us by God.
Church leaders have essentially CHEAPENED God's tithe from God's assets to man's income. That must be an insult to God. How dare anyone call a tenth of their income a Holy tithe!
CORRECTION: The Temple, itself, WAS built from using free-will contributions.
[...] Wes at Reason to Stand doesn’t think that it is. He cites the Old Testament verses that are used to support tithing and explains why he doesn’t think they are applicable to Christians. [...]
Wow, is Ed Young creepy. That sure sounded like compulsion to me. I couldn't watch it all.
The auto-withdrawal is certainly convenient, but not the way he is promoting it.
Great post. I was disheartened in the way the pastors only preached about money for the pocket instead of the whole counsel of God. Thanks for the teaching. I have similar teaching in my book, A Shepherd's Trial: Feeding or Fleecing the Flock of God? http://www.strategicpublishing.....ASh…
Is it wrong that I was hoping the whole congregation left the building when his back was turned and he was punking them to leave?
Ed Young, like most TBN/Sky Angel/Inspiration/GodTV, etc. preachers are very theologically shallow and I wish people would stop watching them and supporting them because it's so wrong the way they treat their congregations.
Even Flavius Josephus, the OT Apocrypha book Tobit and the Jewish Misha – all confirm multiple tithes.
Tithing never referred to earned income!
Keep up the good work!
The whole argument of the article started off on a wrong footing, and Mark was spot on to recognize that problem – although this has been largely ignored by comments opposing tithing.
Biblical tithes were NOT taxes! The Old Testament recognizes taxes by various terms, but God never once defined the Biblical tithes (Abraham, Jacob's or the Levitical system) as a tax.
Secondly, Mark also pointed out that there are similarities in giving today as in the OT tithe. I would just add that beyond a 'similarity' is the fact that the apostle drew from the Law of Moses to teach Christian giving in the NT – a fact which anti-tithers have often been reluctant to consider!
In 1 Corinthians 9:8-10, Paul makes the point that the Law of Moses instructs Christians in the principle of giving for the support of responsible ministers in the Church. Then in verse 13, he plainly argues his point from the OT Levitical system found in the Law of Moses – 'Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?'
Immediately following that, he says in verse 14 – 'EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.' For clarity, you make check or compare this verse up in the following versions –
(a) Amplified version – "[ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel."
(b) NIV – "IN THE SAME WAY, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."
For those who deny any semblance between the Old Testament and the New Testament in this issue, what then is the reason why the apostle Paul would have quoted from the Law of Moses to teach new covenant believers on this subject?
Mark made huge sense, but it is not surprising that what he pointed out was largely ignore for convenience sake.
Thanks for joining the discussion! You raise a number of interesting issues.
First there is the issue of the tithe being a tax. It is true that the tithe was never called a tax in the OT, however it is the government-sanctioned seizing of private property for public consumption. In my estimation, that performs the same function of a tax, especially under a theocracy, as the IRS does today.
Second, just because there are similarities, like money changing hands, it does not give us warrant to claim they are therefore the same thing. If that were the case then we would have to concede to all the people who want to claim that Jesus's death and resurrection was just another in a long line of dying and rising gods. Rather, as a literary device to aid in communicating a new paradigm, using the tithe as a reference makes a lot of sense. However, since the tithe in the OT was given 1. to the priests and 2. for the temple I don't see how the NT believer could ever make the leap of thinking the tithe as instituted in the OT is the same as the grace-based giving taught in the NT.
Next you mention 1 Corinthians 9:8-10. I think its helpful to point out here that Paul begins this whole section as a defense of his rights as an apostle (3), so to read it as simply a list of things that only applies to the clergy of today is wrong. If it applies to Paul, it applies to all brothers and sisters in the faith meaning that even I, an unordained plebeian in the kingdom of Christ, would be within my rights as Paul cited to receive compensation for work done to "further the gospel".
To that end it also needs to be pointed out that there is a huge difference between the notions that 1. it is ok for someone to receive compensation for their work and 2. it is incumbent on others to support a special caste of Christians regardless of the work done.
As to your question about why Paul would quote the law of the OT here. I think its helpful to point out that the law cited here had as its example the ox of a a common farmer. That is, this law had to do with the same principle found in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 regarding work. If you work, you should receive compensation from those who derive a benefit. Now here is where things don't go so well for your analogy.
You are assuming that everyone who hears a member of the special clergy caste is undually edified and enriched. That is simply not the case. Additionally you fail to factor in the plebeians like myself who undertake the task of teaching others who, like Paul, ask and expect no compensation for our efforts whatsoever.
In verse 7 Paul asks what soldier serves at his own expense. I would submit that before we talk about compensation we need to ask the question about whether or not the person we are compensating is a warrior or not.
The tithe was not a tax, nor did it have any such semblance. It was not the seizing of property, else no one would have been exempted. People convenient read tax into it by ignoring its intrinsic meaning.
I did not equate or define similarities to be 'the same thing'. 1 Corinthians 9 makes the point that Paul made use of the Law of Moses, which is a fact that antitithers are reluctant to observe, if not categorically deny!
Besides, you're wrong to argue that if 1 Cor. 9 applied to Paul, the it applied to ALL believers. If the gist of that chapter was a defense of Paul's apostleship, are you making all believers into apostles?
Besides, I did not assume anything, which is a mute point in your suggestion about a clergy caste whatever. And I certainly don't see you as an apostle like Paul, for 1 Cor. 9 was not making a case for plebeians – no offense, but please recall that not all are apostles (1 Cor. 12:28-29).
The last point about whether a person were a warrior or not just misses the whole point.
Quibbling over whether the tithe was a tax or not also misses the whole point. What you are tasked with if you want to claim the tithe is still in effect today is reconciling:
1. The tithe was compulsory, to be given in specified amounts, to the priesthood, to the temple, at certain times, etc. And that is an oversimplification of the tithe system, as others have pointed out here, the understanding of tithe = 10% is a gross oversimplification.
2. The grace-based giving taught and modeled in the NT is to be done under no compulsion, in amounts specified by the giver's heart, to the poor and needy directly (whereas the priests were the ones who largely took care of that in the OT) and at the giver's discretion (not at set times).
Now while they are both similar, they both involve giving money to advance the Kingdom of God, there are significant differences between the two. And to confuse one with the other is not only false, if it is taught by a member of the clergy caste it calls into question their own training which undercuts their ability to teach at all.
Now as for Paul's being an apostle it seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either Paul's argument in 1 Cor 9 was for apostles, which are different than teachers/pastors, or else it was with regard to priests, which is why he used the OT law as a reference. If it is the former then using Paul is just as out of bounds for modern day clergy as it is for plebeians like myself. If it is the latter then we are all included by virtue of the priesthood of believers.
You can't have it both ways.
I am inclined to hold to the latter, based on the fact that God's goal is to form a nation of priests (OT) and ultimately does in the Church.
Either way, you are still left with the task of explaining how the tithe and grace based giving can coexist when the two are at odds in their respective particular definitions. Given that the two contradict each other on key points, most notably in the compulsion department, I think you have you would have an easier time explaining how a square circle can exist.
I agree that the quibbling is quite out of joint – which makes me wonder why you insisted in the first place in asserting the tithes were a tax. That's just simply not true.
1. I did not argue anything as 'compulsory', did I? If you check again my initial reply, you find PRINCIPLES, not the legalism of insisting on literal applications. That is simply the gist of my comments, no? Please calmly read it again.
2. There's absolutely nothing in principle about grace giving that we don't already find in the OT. Those who don't know would simply ignore it, until they do a simple study. I'm open to consider any such PRINCIPLE, if you may.
3. I did not confuse one for the other – and to have misread that into my comments is also false. Sorry, but that's obviously the case. Similarity is not 'the same thing' – you pointed that out, and I acknowledged it by remarking I never argued otherwise. If we're missing something here, I'd be glad to consider it as well.
1. "I did not argue anything as 'compulsory', did I? If you check again my initial reply, you find PRINCIPLES, not the legalism of insisting on literal applications."
Legalism is not defined as applying proper hermanutics to the text, legalism is defined as arguing for the law. Sorry, but you have to switch over to using deconstructionism in order to skew the word "legalism" to mean what you are claiming it to mean. Then again, I suppose you have deconstructed the word tax to not apply to the tithe when it is readily apparent that the tithe in the OT is a matter of national concern and is something extracted by force by the theocratic government. I suppose by the same logic you would argue that anything today the government takes today is not a tax unless it is specifically labeled as such in the legislation (ie. Obamacare).
2. "There's absolutely nothing in principle about grace giving that we don't already find in the OT."
There most certainly is. We do not find the priesthood, temple, or livestock inseparably attached to the grace-based gift found in the NT. In fact, we find an admonition to give directly to the poor and downtrodden. We are released from giving through an intermerdieary just like through Jesus we are released from having to appeal to God through a human intermedieary.
I know you want to see the tithe as merely a principle, but the fact is that words mean something and the word "tithe" is no different. If you are going to argue the principle of giving then you should call it that and not the loaded OT concept of the tithe.
Yes, the tithe is given in the NT as an example of giving that Jews in particular would be familiar with, but the fact that NT believers are not under the law as it pertains to the temple and Levitical priesthood also entails that they are not under the compulsory tithe as found in the OT.
3. "I did not confuse one for the other – and to have misread that into my comments is also false."
Again words matter. You are simply being dishonest when you say that I have misread anything when you are using the word "tithe" which carries with it a clear and precise meaning. Again, you will have to resort to a deconstructive hermanutic in order to rescue your case from complete incoherence.
Well, I'm just wondering – did you not make a case to not quibble over the 'tithe = tax' issue? It is simply not true to and is a misrepresentation to make it so – deconstruction or not!
Just to help you understand my persuasions a little bit more –
1. Legalism is simply a case of arguing by the letter, not just 'the law'. There is such a thing as arguing for the law when it comes to dealing with 'the spirit of the law'. This Wikipedia line essentially captures it for me –
'When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.'
2. I'm sure that you will find loads of verses in the NT where the apostles indeed argued for the spirit of the law rather than for the letter! No? Then please first go check it carefully – the hermeneutics is not difficult on that.
3. Again and again, I have to appeal to your better sense of reading "PRINCIPLES" in my comments, and not literalism. Your reading of the principles of giving is again tending to legalism – by reference to livestock, temple, etc. Please understand again the simple case between an argument by 'the letter' and understanding 'the spirit of the law', and I've been pointing to the latter all along, yes?
4. The application of 'the spirit of the law' features in Paul's use of the OT. For instance, Paul indeed quoted the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:4) – twice in his epistles: 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18. If he were arguing legalism there, he would have been making a literal case for bovens and crops. But we know (as good hermeneutics show) that he was applying the spirit of the law in those instances.
So, please calm down and reconsider these simple issues. The Bible in the NT does not throw out the Law (Rom. 3:31 and 15:4); and rather than arguing legalism by the letter, there's no denying that the apostles indeed appeal to the spirit of the Law in their NT teachings. One word to help in all this: PRINCIPLES.
3. This letter/spirit differentiation is the very definition of postmodern deconstructionism as posited by Derrida. Since I reject deconstructionism as a valid hermetical methodology, I also reject your repeated appeals to there being a difference in principles vs. literalism.
4. Paul's use of imagery to convey a point, that being of the new standard of grace-based giving, is not the same as advocating the legal concept of the tithe. You cannot appeal to the deconstructionalist standard of an unrealized ideal being, in your words, the "principle of giving" and regard the two as being the same thing.
So rather than pretending that I am somehow not being calm or rational, please deal with the topic in an objective fashion (without redefining words like "tithe") as opposed to deconstructing it to fit your PRINCIPLES.
4. It's either Paul was making a case for 'plebeians' in 1 Cor. 9 (which is false), or verse 1 is forgotten very quickly out of sight! Further, I thought YOU made the point earlier that "Paul begins this whole section as a defense of his rights as an APOSTLE"? Where did the switch suddenly occur to become a case for 'plebeians'?
5. If it was a case for the latter (plebeians), I don't see how it could be sound exegesis to ignore the case of his apostleship (which YOU already noted was what he begins with in that chapter, no?). Should I now read that as another conveniently ignored issue in your rejoinders? Just wondering.
4. & 5. "Where did the switch suddenly occur to become a case for 'plebeians'? "
There was no sudden switch. Paul is arguing in 1 Cor 9 for rights given to all believers. Or are you going to also argue that it is only members of the clergy caste that have the right to take a believing wife? Paul is not arguing here for special rights here, that would be contra to Jesus's teachings against a hierarchical system of authority in the body of Christ (Luke 22:26).
Paul is merely arguing that what he is doing is right in line with the rights and privileges that all believers enjoy. That his work yields fruit and that he has a right to partake of that fruit if he so chooses.
What is interesting is that Paul generally refuses to partake of that right and, instead, chooses to support himself in order to not be a burden to anyone.
I don't see the exegesis or hermeneutics in yours that leads to that conclusion. The simple issue was whether or not 1 Corinthians 9 was as you tended to make it – a case for 'plebeians'. What exegetical principle in hermeneutics helps your conclusion?
1 Cor 9:1-5 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? "
Paul's apostleship is in question here and Paul's response is based on the freedom which is possessed by all believers. In that freedom we find 1. " the right to food and drink", 2. "the right to take a believing wife along with us" and 3. (v12) "this right of support from you". None of these are apostle-specific rights, they are all rights given to all believers by virtue of the freedom Christ has brought us.
Now what I want to know if you is why you think, or if you do, that the right of support here is limited to a clergy caste in the same way that the tithe in the OT was restricted to be given to the Levitical priesthood.
Additionally, I would like to know how 1 Cor 9:9 relates to the tithe at all when the ox given in the illustration is not referred to as being a descendant of Aaron.
Now, the point of explaining how the tithe and grace based giving could coexist is simple. Please read: PRINCIPLES!
That is why they are not at odds, nor are they contradictory! Since I did not argue anything on the basis of compulsion, you probably are only creating a task for yourself on that.
Even in the OT, God showed His displeasure on the idea of 'compulsion' in giving, no? Did 'cheerful giving' begin with the NT as a sort of spiritual neologism? Absolutely not! This is why I'm persuaded (after carefully considering it) that the PRINCIPLES of giving in the NT are all already found in the OT!
As I didn't make a case for an argument of compulsion or any other such onomotopeia in giving, you probably jumped to conclusions that it must be so. I'd only wonder if you're one of those who is persuaded that the OT had nothing to do with grace? Just wondering.
"Even in the OT, God showed His displeasure on the idea of 'compulsion' in giving, no?"
Malachi 3:8-11 tells us that failing to tithe is "robbing God". Your assertion that the tithe is not compulsory is plainly false and unsupported by the text.
Sorry, but projection (assuming I am not calmly evaluating the facts to come to a conclusion based on the Biblical data) and deconstructing (basically playing word games) is not getting us anywhere nor does it do much to answer the points I raised in my initial post.
So unless you want to take on the task of answering the specific points I raised I will have to bow out of this discussion.
I wasn't playing word games – which was the reason I tried to explain my intended meanings which you ignored. That's okay – perhaps you just weren't serious when you asserted that 'words matter', did you?
Now, as regarding my statement on the question of God showing His displeasure on the idea of 'COMPULSION' in giving, I'd like you to consider the following –
1. The foundation of giving has always been WILLINGNESS (which is not the same as 'COMPULSION'). The examples of this could be found in Exodus 25:2; 35:5, etc. (OT), and 2 Cor. 8:12.
2. There are examples where God showed His displeasure on occurences of 'COMPULSION' in giving – 1 Sam. 2:13-17; Neh. 5:15 and Mic. 3:5-6.
3. Since there is a difference between COMPULSION (ie., "coercion") and COMPULSORY (ie., "necessary"), could you please kindly show me where God had placed His people under COMPULSION (ie., coercion) in giving?
I'm sorry that you missed the point, but I'm asking kindly that you please calm down and reconsider these issues – afterall, you have noted that 'words matter', and I'm imploring you to follow that simple axiom in yours.
Yours – "This letter/spirit differentiation is the very definition of postmodern deconstructionism as posited by Derrida."
You're welcome to reject anything you so wish, but I'm sure that partying it here and there does not remove the fact that the Bible clearly makes a case between "the letter" and "the spirit" of the Law – 2 Cor. 3:6. It is not by 'the letter', but rather by the spirit of the Law that we derive principles for practical Christian living. The former tends to legalism – and I've tried to show where the difference is.
Again, I did not argue for the 'legal' this and that – which is the reason I have forever made plain that my comments do not favour legalism or literalism! The legal concept of this and that is not what you read in my comments – that again does not negate the FACT that the apostles quoted directly from the same Law of Moses without seeking legalistic applications!
[...] last, I simply pointed out the difference in noting that, while compulsion points to coercion, on the other hand compulsory indicates a rule. [...]
It becomes clear that if what "giving tithes" is saying concerning the PRINCIPLES of giving in the NT being already found in the OT! that we cannot stop the cart there! We are then forced to include harvest offerings, firstfruit offerings etc. They are not and cannot be THE SAME PRINCIPLES. THey are similar only in as far as they relate to honouring God. They were commanded as offerings relating to the ministration of the temple WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS. They were specific instructions relating to a specific scenario. Oyu are opening up a can of wormds…
This shows you didn't understand the meaning of 'principle' before responding. A principle is not what you want to 'force' any anyone – which makes your idea of "we are forced to include" as meaningless as ever!
I also wonder how you reconcile your denial and equivocation all in one breath! While you deny the fact of the 'principles' of OT in the NT in giving, you still acquiesce that they are 'SIMILAR'? And no – it is not only in the matter of honouring God that you find similarities/principles – please read YOUR Bible.
Just a word on your quote: 'They were commanded as offerings relating to the ministration of the temple WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS. They were specific instructions relating to a specific scenario.'
Just because the OT Temple no longer exists does not mean therefore that Christians cannot derive 'principles' from the OT Scriptures. And although the Law of Moses and the Prophets gave 'specific instructions' to the Jews, this did not deter the NT apostles from using the same Law and Prophets to teach Christian living. It is for this reason I gave the example of Paul's use of the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, quoted below from the Amplified (emphasis mine in verse 14) –
'13Do you not know that those men who are employed in the services of the temple get their food from the temple? And that those who tend the altar share with the altar [in the offerings brought]? 14[ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.'
I'm sorry, are you saying that the temple and all its attendant sacrifices are still in effect today? If so I not only need to bring my tithes and offering into the storehouse (of the temple) but I have a lot of animals to purchase and kill as well.
Please, Wes: No. I did not say any such things as you inferred – if you only take time to re-read my comments and not jump to hasty (mis)conclusions. However, if you are determined to hold your conclusions to 'have a lot of animals to purchase and kill as well', you're absolutely free to do as you may – as long as you do NOT read any such things into my comments.