Questions about Tithing

My earthly father put this together.

 

Vhehn,

If I may add my 10% here, tithing is biblical (described in OT and implied in several NT passages) but it’s not required in the New Covenant (NC) (relationship between God and Christians). Maybe that’s what you mean by it not being biblical. You are correct in that it’s NOT required to give 10% of your income under the NC. In fact there is nothing you can do in the NC to earn your way to heaven. The NC is based of faith, not works. You can go to church every Sunday, tithe 10% of your income, and give your time to the cause but it will NOT improve or establish your relationship with God in any way if you don’t have faith, as described in the following link.

<url>http://www.gotquestions.org/Romans-road-salvation.html</url>

 

I don't want to be overly picky here, but I think there are many requirements in the new covenant. You are right, they don't improve your new relationship with God or get you into heaven, but they are required, nonetheless. He did say "a new commandment I give you", didn't he? I think a commandment could also be considered a requirement, couldn't it?

 

Murray,
Where is the ref for this? Thanks,

 

=======

Math Whiz;
Probably depends on whether you believe the LORD & his Word is more powerful than cancer & insurance;
or vice versa

Interestingly some of the BEST cures for cancer are miracles & nutrition, DR Luke wrote of plenty of miracles;
so depends also on whether one believes Lord knows much about miracles or nutrition

 

=============
Granville;
Would you consider it rude if i asked you to look it up????;
if necessary I will look it up in a Strongs concordence
====================================

Thank you, its there;
will look it up if you really want it.

 

================
Acronym;
The 2nd greatest commandment is do unto other as you would have them do unto you;
dont give some one a inferior black plastic stock, when the desire of thier heart is black walnut,

Tithing is separate from offerings;
tithing goes into a Bible church or Synagog[widows mite mentioned. in a TEMPLE OR SYNAGOG , not church].

Hebrews 7 is exception to rule;
Abrqham GAVE IT TO Mel, king /priest of Salem

If that didnt answer questions, rephrase, thanks

 

======================
FHL;

Thanks for clearing up ignorance[ignoring =root word];
about tithing clearly being New Testament command NOT just old Hebrew requirement

Amazing how some chose to ignore clear command .

 

I admit this is pretty good. If I may add something, we could look at Abel's offering in Gen 4:4. True, it doesn't indicate how much but only that it was the first and best of his possession.

Matt 23 I wouldn't take to be an indication that tithing is a requirement under the new testament. This passage addresses the Hebrew pharisee's penchant for nitpicking/cherry picking the law and choosing what's important and what's not when God commands all making all important. But again, this is address to Hebrews only as that was their law.

But the passage in Hebrews was a good choice. At first I thought I may have overlooked something and would have to concede that tithing is still in force. But as I read on, a few verses, one in particular, called into question the notion of tithing under the NT.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

It's refering to Christ's office(Melchisedecian order) which supercedes the Levitical order and therefore the levital law of which is the ordinance of tithing. (Note: the ten commandments are not superceded because they were given before the levitical laws and establishment of the Levital order through Aaron. That leaves 603 laws that have been superceded.)


So while Abraham did give a tenth of spoil to a mysterious King (of whom Christ is said to be in the order of), you can't take that to mean anything more than an unrequired act of piety. Because the other incident of an offering before the Levitical law to do so (abel's), doesn't speak to the quantity, but the quality. Much like what is again echoed by Christ in the NT when refering to the poor woman's offering which happened to be all she had. Certainly more than a tenth. And that's why Paul goes on to say in Corithians that God loves a cheerful giver. In other words, one who does so willingly and out of reverence and love for God, and with an acknowledgement that the believer is but a steward of what he possesses because all come from God and all is God's.

To bring it full circle, is it wrong to give 10%? Depends on why you are doing it. Are you doing it thinking you're fulfilling some desire of God for you to do so? If so then yes, it's ethically wrong and perhaps morally. Ethically because God does not command you to do so. He doesn't command you to follow any of the levitical law. By following just one of the 603(613-10commandments), you are saying that Christ's work on the Cross did not fulfil the law. That would make following the tithe ordinance, morally wrong.

So what's optimal? Give when you see a need. Give of your time, your resources. Give expecting nothing in return. No blessing, no repayment. Give because ultimately it isn't yours and you can't take it with you. Give as a servant of God to address the needs of other servants of God first and to be a light to those who do not know His name second. If it happens to be that at the end of the day, when taking account, you happen to have given 10%, then fine. You may find that sometimes you gave 50% or 25% or even 100%.

 

I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately and haven't really decided if this is the right thing to do.

I personally have a dayjob and take a paycheck like everyone else. I also trade and have been fortunate enough so far to grow my bankroll in a way that dayjob never could.

If I arrive at old age with wealth, I have already decided it's not a good idea to give the majority of it to my kids. But I'm grappling with the idea of simply destroying the bulk of the wealth I don't pass on instead of donating to charity.

I'm not saying that philanthropy is a bad idea, quite the contrary. But above all else, it is a personal choice. The issue I'm wrestling with is one of fairness. How fair is it that someone or group of people, even in need, should just receive free handouts without deserving it? Without working for it? Without providing something in exchange for it? Is that fair to my children, who should also go out there and stake their own claim by hard work and perseverance? What kind of message about entitlement does that send to society, that someone can receive for free undeservedly?

Some might call me callous, but basically I came from a humble background. I worked my way through school and fought tooth and nail to educate myself and provide for my own family without receiving any handouts from anyone.

Again, I'm still undecided on this issue, but if I am at the fortunate position of reaching old age in good health and good wealth, I might decide that the fairest thing to do is simply make the money unavailable to anyone for use.

RoughTrader