|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Does God believe in Tithing?
return to the main-page article on "God"
Editor's note: This item, in a sense, is a bit out of place in this roster. I wrote this article many years ago and decided to post it here as it may help to free some from Big Religion's propaganda on this subject.
Excerpts from the Galatians notes:
"When we are dealing with concepts like freedom and equality, it is essential to use words accurately and in good faith... beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is.
"A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones." Paul Johnson, A New Deuteronomy
Galatians 6:6 "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."
There is much debate about the meaning of this verse. Most commentators, it seems, side with the explanation that Paul lapses into a discussion of money, the material compensation of the ministry by those who are taught. The word "communicate" in the Greek generally means "fellowship" but sometimes does take the meaning of receiving material aid (Phil. 4:15).
I think these interpretations of Paul as finance minister here are entirely in the wrong. The Paul who, in a spirit of not wishing to offend new converts, would not even mention to the Thessalonians the subject of financial aid to the Church, would not be very likely to broach the issue of ministerial wages in the super-charged atmosphere of contention which was the Galatian churches. He was far too sensitive to have blundered that way. Talking about money just then would have played exactly into the propaganda sold by the opposition.
"The interpretation that makes the one taught assume the responsibility for the financial welfare of his teacher is not possible in this instance of the use of the word [communicate]. This is the word Paul uses in Philippians 4:15, where he speaks of the obligation of the one taught to make the financial needs of his teacher his own, thus sharing with his teacher his earthly goods inasmuch as the teacher has shared with him his heavenly blessings. But Paul does not use it so here, and for the following reasons:
"First, the context which speaks both of the evil (6:1-5) and the morally good (6:9, 10), is against the interpretation that financial support is in the apostle's mind here.
"Second, the context defines the good things as being of a spiritual, not a material nature.
"Third, it would be the height of folly for Paul to inject such a delicate subject as the pocketbook of the saint into the already discordant atmosphere of the Galatian churches, especially when the whole trouble revolved around heretical teaching and not around the finances of the churches.
"Fourth, if Paul were exhorting the saints to contribute financially to the support of their former teachers, the Judaizers would be quick to say that the apostle was attempting to win the Galatian saints back for financial reasons, since he himself was one of their former teachers. One of the favorite methods of attack adopted by the enemies of Paul was to charge him with commercializing his ministry." KW
"It is, as often, difficult to decide whether this is the final verse of this section or the opening clause of the next ... it is best to take it as a 'bridge verse'..." AC
The message is very likely this: In vss. 1 - 5 Paul instructs the Galatians to humbly but firmly confront the Judaizers and their adherents. In vs. 6 Paul instructs "the taught" to accept or have fellowship with only those teachers who teach "good things" i.e. the spiritual, grace-message of the gospel. They are to reject the heretical Judaizers and their legalistic message of works.
The Tithing System and the Financing of the NT Church: It's a wonderful thing to see a group of Christians contribute financially to further a good cause. They may even decide to give a percentage of their income to reach their good-works goal. However, it is decidedly not something good for anyone to be made to feel guilty or 2nd-class because s/he cannot or is not moved to contribute.
Ecclesiastical politicians, the spin-doctors of legalism, may talk a good fight as they promote faith in Christ, trusting in Him, espousing other Christian virtue-abstractions. But, for them, when the rubber hits the road, it's not "salvation by faith alone," it's "faith -- and a checkbook." Your checkbook, that is. They want, for starters, 10% of your income. And they're not ashamed to lay a good-sized guilt-trip on you if you dare to disagree.
"Tithe" is an Old English word for "tenth." The typical modern legalist minister will bold-facedly tell you that the Old Testament system is "done away" -- except, most strangely, for the tithing system! Liberal, big-church-government-espousing politicos find this Old Covenant anachronism too juicy, too profitable, too wonderful to relegate to the "fulfilled in Christ" category along with animal sacrifices and ritualistic washings.
Ecclesiastical politicians promote rules and regulations because they themselves, conveniently, are the arbiters of those rules. Rules become a means of controlling and gaining power over people. Tithing is rescued from the trashbin of Old Testament theology because -- do I have to tell you -- it's the money! Let's "follow the money" in our investigation:
You may be attending a church which endorses tithing, and it probably has "spiritual" reasons for this policy. Again, it's not wrong for a church to voluntarily adopt a tithing program -- but it all becomes wrong when tithing is taught as immutable law.
I will give you a quick listing of some of the main arguments for tithing but also the rest of the story. Before I begin, let me say that most of the "difficulties" in scripture are caused by dishonest scholarship. Instead of ascertaining the biblical writer's main point, private interpretations are inserted into scripture to support bogus claims. It's called having a vested interest.
They say that Hebrews 7 teaches mandatory tithing. This is patently wrong. The main subject there is the superiority of Christ's spiritual priesthood over that of the Levites; of the New Covenant over the Old. Tithing is mentioned only incidentally, a passing note as a means of explaining the larger principle of Christ's superiority over Levi. When modern church-politicos read the word "law" in verse 12 they, because of their fixation upon and vested interests in tithing, interpret this as "tithing law." This is egregiously wrong as it is not only poor theology but a simple matter of poor scholarship: the context demands "law" to mean the entire "Old Covenant Law system," the superstructure of which revolved around the priests and the temple rituals -- which is why they are discussed here. Hebrews 7 in no form or manner imposes mandatory tithing upon those under the New Covenant.
They say that since Abraham paid tithes long before the Old Covenant was given at Mt. Sinai, tithing is not mere ritual and therefore survives the abolishment of the Old Covenant. More bad logic (encouraged by vested interests). The presumption here suggests that Abraham's actions constitute ideal religious practice. This selective acceptance of data ignores that Abraham also built altars, offered animal sacrifices, thought it God's will to father a child via his servant girl -- and many other things we could mention, none of which are promoted by legalists as "eternal principles" -- only tithing! ("follow the money")
They say that Jesus put his stamp of approval on tithing (Matt 23:23). Similar logic as above. When Jesus said what he did, the Old Covenant was still in force. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and kept the laws of the Old Testament as other Jews. But that all fell by the wayside, as Paul explains in Galatians.
Paul chose to support himself by working as a tentmaker rather than cause offense by asking his new converts for money. It would not have been wrong for Paul to ask for and receive financial help -- but this was Paul's choice. If tithing were a law, something commanded, then Paul would have been remiss in his duties as spiritual leader of the churches to have failed to teach his converts about tithing.
In 1 Cor. 9 Paul explains that he had the right to receive donations (not a tithe) from his converts -- but he chose not to exercise this right. The basis of his claim of right is not an OT tithing scripture but a general principle from Deut. 25 regarding the ox treading the corn. Why didn't Paul simply appeal to a tithing scripture in Lev. or Num. if the "tenthing" rule was still in force now in NT times?
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The early Church had no tithing system. The tithes of the Old Testament were regarded as abrogated by the law of Christ... But as the Church expanded and its material needs grew... it became necessary to adopt a definite rule to which people could be held either by a sense of moral obligation or by a precept of positive law. The tithing of the Old Law provided an obvious model, and it began to be taught... The Council of Macon in A.D. 585 ordered payment of tithes and threatened excommunication to those who refused to comply." Isn't it strange that there is many a Protestant minister who is quick to condemn Catholic practices -- but when it comes to tithing, Mother Rome knows best after all.
There were three tithes paid in ancient Israel. Most who claim that tithing is still in force lack the nerve to go all the way in their legalism by suggesting that the other two be kept as well!
The rules regarding tithing in the OT are very specific. For instance, only the Levites could accept tithes. And not just any Levite but only those who were serving at the Temple. No one else was authorized to receive the tithes. Neither Paul nor any other minister, then or now, has the right to accept tithes.
The Israelites were commanded to tithe only on (1) agricultural products and (2) every tenth animal of their herds (Lev. 27:30-32). The Israelites were never instructed in any scripture to tithe on their monetary wages -- and people did use money in those days. Not everyone was a farmer or herdsmen. Fishermen did not offer up the tenth fish to God; sandal-maker employees did not tithe on their wages!
And if your cows or sheep produced only 9 little critters - you paid zero tithe, absolutely none. God's law required the tenth one to be offered and if there was no #10, you paid no tithe!
The Jewish Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion ("Tithes") point out that tithing was practiced only on agricultural produce and livestock. Also, every seven years was a sabbatical and no tithing at all was practiced during that year!
If everyone in society tithed on everything bought, sold, earned, inherited, etc. -- after a period of time all of the money would be in the hands of top-dog church politicians. Sounds like a very good business.
Some pharisee-politicians blather about "Tithing is not a law in force today. We keep it as a principle." More spiritual-sounding drivel. The "principle" of tithing does not mean a continuation of ordinary Old Testament tithing.
Did you ever notice that the growth of the fledgling 1st century Christian church was not held back by a lack of money? The early church met in small groups in people’s homes. It doesn't take much money to have a few people over to your house. Salaries for ministers? While there may be scriptural basis for some financial support of ministers, it's important to note that most of the early church leaders were "volunteer pastors" who held down day-jobs and served the church in their spare time.
"Unprofessional" and under-financed, the early Church within one generation, as reported even by their detractors, "turned the [Roman] world upside down" with their spirit-filled lives and message. We should be so unprofessional.
Today, though we have impressive bricks-and-mortar church buildings on nearly every street corner in America, complete with full-time staff, the Church too often is sterile, irrelevant, stultified, playing handmaid to the society it was meant to lead.
Instead of teaching tithing, spirit-led ministers will be teaching Christians how to live in and be led by the Spirit.
Instead of teaching tithing, spirit-led ministers will be teaching Christians how to discover their own spiritual gifts and that God teaches each of us individually.
Instead of teaching tithing, spirit-led ministers will be teaching Christians that God loves us, that we are his children - and the full implications of what this means.
Church members, thus instructed and discipled, will experience and exhibit an irrepressible desire to glorify God, manifested by service-evangelism the likes of which would transform our world - even without a high-budget bricks-and-mortar program.
Tithing was originally given to a people who did not want to serve God. In effect, God was saying, "If I didn't make a rule, you'd never give a dime or serve me at all, so I'll legislate a minimum standard for giving."
Tithing is not taught in the NT because, as Paul instructs us in Galatians 5, the Spirit, Christ in us, makes us deeply desire to do all of the things that the Old Law could only try to force people to do.
Nevertheless, legalists attempting to sound "spiritual," try to fool people with the following kind of God-talk: "Today we are interested only in the principle behind tithing, not the old letter of the law."
The principle behind tithing is not more legalistic tithing! The principle behind tithing is a life, with all of its resources, 100%, wholly dedicated and consecrated to God.
Tithing, as promoted and taught today, is far more legalistic, more burdensome, than the original version practiced under the Old Covenant, which, as we have seen, did not require tithing on monetary wages.
Today, for those who live in the Spirit, the principle of tithing is a heart that seeks to mold one's life into total service to God -- not just 10% of the way. How tawdry to suggest that a Spirit-led person would say, "OK God, you can have your 10%, but remember to keep hands off the 90% that's mine." How miserable to suggest that this is what the Christian life is about.
Tithing was concomitant with the Old Covenant Temple system; when it died -- pronounced buried in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem -- tithing went along with it! Tithing died with the Old Covenant system.
- God doesn't want 10% -- He wants it all; He wants all of you; and He wants you to voluntarily offer to Him 100% of everything you are and have.
This is the principle behind tithing -- it's what God really wanted from ancient Israel. He wanted them to love Him with all of their hearts, souls, and minds -- not just 10% -- but they would not. God never wanted to be a miserly "Mr. Ten Percent."
How does this all work out in practice today?
Christians have great freedom. There will be times when you may not contribute a dime to any church cause; and there may be times when you give substantial amounts. There will be times when you will donate and sacrifice large amounts of time to further the interests of Christ; there will be other times, maybe long periods of time, when you will lack opportunity to contribute much more than just keeping your own life and family together.
Knowing what to do and when to do it, how or whether to give, for the Christian, is determined by this:
Getting back to Galatians 6:6: the common interpretation of this verse as support for tithing is just one more attempt on the part of legalist-politicians to misrepresent, to "re-write history," in an effort to further secure their power base. As Paul Johnson said (see top of page), "beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language."
To suggest that Paul suddenly calls time-out during a heated law-grace debate for a 60-second commercial on tithing to "support your friendly local minister" is really laughable. Those "teachers" of scripture who suggest such an interpretation reveal much more about themselves and their true agenda than about the logical flow of Paul's argument. ("Follow the money!")
|