Response to Steve Gregg's article-Is Tithing For Christians?

[Guest]

Sean, what I was quoting had nothing to do with animal sacrifices. I wasn't neccessarily responding to only you anyhow. Someone (maybe Steve) said that it must be our responsibility to stone those that do not obey the law if it is our responsibility to tithe.
I was showing that Jesus made it clear that we are to operate under grace (like he has with us). That He did, in fact, say that a person should not be stoned as the law prescribes. I also put that example there for you because you stated that he commended the tithing of the pharisees that were not Christians. You made that your proof that it doesn't include us because he was speaking to people that still placed themselves under the law.

Well I don't believe these that wanted to stone the woman were Christians but Christ imposed the Christian way on them. So why would he not impose the (So called by you guys) "Christian" teaching of not continuing the tithe to them as well? He didn't discourage it, he told them they were doing the right thing by not robbing God in the slightest.

You guys should really not be advocating robbing God. I may not be popular for saying that to you guys, but it's the truth.

[Guest]

AARONDISNEY, I sense that there is something far deeper than the issue of tithing that is bothering you and if I am right about this then aren't you the same person who felt very bad about how you treated your pastor over one of the many issues discussed on these boards? What I'm saying is do you feel that you have been betraying your original interpretation and maybe now you are trying to make amends with your conscience?

[_Steve]

I would like to question the assertion that Jesus "commended" the Pharisees for their paying of tithes. I find no commendation of them in Matthew 23:23. What I read there is:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."

I see no congratulations given here—only "Woe to you!" The last line, in context, seems to mean:

"These [i.e., the "weightier matters"] you ought to have done, without leaving the others [tithing] undone."

To say that someone had done that which must not be left undone is not necessarily a commendation. It depends on the context of the statement.

Suppose you said to a man:

"While you may not have beaten your wife this week, yet, in the same period, you have been sexually unfaithful to her! You should have been sexually faithful as well as not beating her!"

Have we, in this statement, "commended" the man for not beating his wife?

All I see, in Matthew 23:23, is an acknowledgment that the Pharisees paid tithes scrupulously, and that this was, indeed, something they had been required to do. They should not have (and did not) leave it "undone." The statement, however, is saying that, while they kept a minor duty, they were all the while neglecting major duties.

In this chapter, there is no praise for the Pharisees for doing the less important things, which fell within their duty to do. There is only rebuke for failing to perform the more important duties that they neglected.

For example, when Jesus said (two verses later):

"“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence..."

It would be strange for us to take this as "commending" them for cleansing the outside of the cup...or, a few verses later (29), to suggest that He was commending them for adorning the tombs of the prophets, whom their ancestors had murdered. To see a commendation of the Pharisees in any of these remarks, I think, entirely misses Jesus' point.

Yes, the Pharisees paid tithes, and yes, Jesus acknowledged that it had been their duty to do so. Anyone could have known this from reading the law under which they labored. Yet, Jesus did not indicate whether payment of tithes was going to continue to be required after the passing away of that law...and He did not in any sense "commend" those who had fulfilled this basic requirement of the law in Matthew 23:23.

[Guest]

Aaron,

I don't think that anyone is advocating robbing God. In fact, I believe that if we are all (the Church - people) the body of Christ, then not giving to each other's needs would in fact be robbing Jesus since we are all his body, His bride, the church.

I might be missing something here, but this is what I've observed from reading the Scripture about giving in the Old and New Testaments:

Old Testament:

The requirement of a specific amount of food (not, it seems, a monetary amount - "You may eat it anywhere, you and your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the tent of meeting.") being given to provide for the Levites so that they would not have to work, "in return for their service which they perform."

The Levites were then to give a tenth of what they had just received to the priest for his and his family's consumption (this is still just food).

They robbed God by not giving to the priests so that they could do what He wanted them to do.

So, even in the Old Testament the giving was to support specific people.

New Testament:

We are all now priests unto God.

All that we have has been given over to Jesus' discretion.

We are to give whatever is needed to actual people (to the needy among the body first, and also to those who "work hard a preaching (the gospel) and teaching).

---------------------------------------

It seems that if we follow Jesus, then much more than 10% will be going to Him (His body). We will be judged by how much we give and sacrifice on behalf of others, so we need to consistently seek Him on where and how much we give.

Here is what we did when we were a part of the church that met in a building. We gave some money to the actual building (because we used the toilet paper, electricity, etc...) but it was nowhere close to 10%. Then we gave money (again not 10%) to one of the pastors that did work hard at preaching the gospel and teaching (we gave a check directly to him). Then we supported specific missionaries that we knew were being faithful oversees, as well as those we felt were being faithful here. Also, if we benefited from any ministry in the body (the body meaning all believers, not "the body at first such and such a place") then we gave to those who were doing the spiritual service. (I say this as what we have chosen to do, not as a prescription for everyone to follow).

All of this was definitely over 10%, if you would want to make that a minimum, but we believe was given to Jesus Himself because it was given to His body, the Church. The only part of it that might not "count" in our minds as given to Him would, ironically, be the part that was given in support of the building... that was more so paying for a convenience or service.

I say this to say that we need to be very careful when we say that others are robbing God by not giving 10% of their income to a building. I think it would be more justified to say that we are robbing God by giving millions of dollars to support the buildings while those that He actually cares about (people) are not being able to feed their family, or go to the ends of the earth to preach the gospel where it has never been heard because all the funds are already designated to the programs and buildings of what our society calls the "church."

In sum, even if you could prove that we were still under obligation to give 10% of our income (or 10% of our food would be more accurate), it would not then dictate that the place we had to give would be the building that we go to on Sundays.

-Rae

[_Steve]

Very good points, Rachel!

[Guest]

The plain fact is that the only thing Jesus said about tithes was when he told the Pharisees that they should not have neglected it. I can't imagine telling someone that the Lord doesn't require the tithe when it is plain in scripture that it is robbing God to not do so.

[Guest]

Are you people telling me that whatever Jesus told the Pharisees, saducees and whatever group might have been trying to trap him to do we should just brush aside as something that does not apply to us?

If your answers are yes I'm gonna have a field day with you guys!!

Jesus was speaking to non-believers when he told them to tithe, it's true, but that does not at all nullify the fact that He stated that they ought to tithe.

[_Steve]

Aarondisney,

Could I ask a personal question? How old are you? Just wondering if my theory is correct.

[Guest]

Aarondisney,

Could I ask a personal question? How old are you? Just wondering if my theory is correct.

Steve, I am 31 years old.
What's your theory?

[_Steve]

My theory was way off. Thought you were younger.