Tithing.com

law

Did Jesus Fulfill or Destroy Tithing?

by Leave a Comment

As we continue our ‘Tithing on Trial’ series, we will evaluate the most common tithing arguments used to defend its practice.

When many inquire how authoritative the Mosaic laws are at governing the Church, a portion of Matthew 5:17 is invoked, which states that Jesus fulfilled the Law for us. This seems to end the Law’s jurisdiction over the Church. Although, when it comes to the authority of tithing over the Church, many invoke a more complete version of Matthew 5:17, which states, that Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law. Now a very simple interpretation becomes convoluted. So, let’s inquire about what it means for tithing when Jesus said he did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law – there’s no argument there. So let’s focus on what he did when he fulfilled the law. We have an article dedicated to defining what fulfill means. 

I don’t want to rehash everything that’s written in the article, but to use that illustration imagine you have two buckets that are both supposed to be filled with water. If one bucket was filled to the brim and the other bucket was empty, which bucket would you say had fulfilled its purpose? Which bucket would you say cannot be used anymore to gather more water? Would either bucket need to be destroyed for any reason? The answer is obvious.

All that Jesus was saying is that the old bucket is used up and can no longer be used to gather more water. The new bucket can be used and has replaced the old bucket. Jesus did not destroy anything. 

The Old Testament is still relevant to us. It offers glimpses of God’s promises and his truth. There are thousands of other reasons why Jesus did not destroy the Law. Fulfilling the Law can be like paying a doctor’s bill. You can pay a bill and fulfill the obligation for it, but that doesn’t mean the bill didn’t exist or the evidence of your medical treatment didn’t exist. The bill isn’t destroyed just because you paid it. Fulfilling the obligation doesn’t mean the obligation is continuously ongoing. 

The same is true for us. Fulfilling the law has nothing to do with confirming its practice in the church. If Jesus came to continue the law for us, we are going to be in trouble because we would be bringing back a lot more than tithing. 

The answer is yes, Jesus fulfilled tithing, but it doesn’t mean to continue. He completed its purpose for us, so we should not continue to fulfill tithing for ourselves. Let’s not cherry-pick verses in the bible to encourage the usage of certain Laws that we want to fit into the church. 

You Be The Judge

Now it’s time for the jury to weigh in:

Did Jesus Continue Tithing for us by Fulfilling the Law?

View Results

Loading ...

Tithing is For Liberals

by 13 Comments

I love politics and philosophical debates about it, so right off the bat, i am NOT apologizing – this will offend many of you (Republicans & Democrats, Liberals & Conservatives). If you are a pansy and can’t take logic and reason, then go suck on a pacifier.

Laws Are For Thee But Not For Me

Hillary-pointing-at-you-all

Liberals want to put the people under a set of laws while they themselves would be under a different set. Take the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for example. They rammed that junk down our throats and made a bunch of promises they couldn’t keep. Heck, they didn’t even keep the most appealing and obvious promises to us. our healthcare costs went up and we lost our doctors.

They also put on restrictions for small businesses and threatened them with fines and fees. Of course, they exempted themselves and their staff from particular laws because they couldn’t afford the costs of it. Such a lovely thing to do!

Let’s transition to tithing. Particularly, those who preach about tithing. They stand behind a pulpit and quote bible verses calling out pestilence and destruction if they don’t give exactly 10.00% on the dot. I always gave 10.50% because I was worried I may have missed something and the tithing boogie man was going to come out of the closet and tear up my valuable baseball card collection.

Anywhoooo. So um. yeah back to tithing preachers . . . Here they are preaching about your requirement to tithing and how you need to support the pastor and the Church because it’s an obligation. While on the other hand, they have not once been under an obligation to serve God as a requirement. They are completely free to start a ministry and preach by the grace and freewill Spirit of God. No one pointed a gun at their head and told them that they must minister to these people otherwise the boogeyman will come and get them.

The church ministry itself is under the leading and calling of the Holy Spirit. If the church wanted to minister downtown, it can. If it wanted to minister to the homeless, it was free to do so. If the Church wanted to minister to rich people, then by all accounts and measure it was up to the leaders and the Holy Spirit to guide in that direction.

No one threatened the Church to minister here nor there. There was no obligation to do such and such. We also know that because, in all honesty, the Church is doing jack squat anyway. I put myself in that category as well. I am hardly doing anything to impact those around me.

Tithing Enables Jacka_ _ _ _

donkey

Tithing could be why there is so much Christian fraud out there. We are gullible sheep going into the slaughterhouse. Our motivation is fear, not joy. Obligation, not grace. Duty, not love.

There are televangelists who get on TV and demand your penance. They promise things that they have no authority nor power to promise. They fly in jets have huge mansions and pretend that your sacrifice is bringing glory to God and not making their wallet any fatter. They are not the only examples. Only the obvious ones.

All they have to do is declare themselves worthy of the office they tell you they were called to, and in return, you have no choice but to support God’s anointed.

Liberals Love Taxes

dollar bills in a mouse trap

Tithing is a tax and we all know that liberals love taxes. If you study tithing in the Old Testament, you will know that it was a tax for Israel. Tithing was used to pay for the bureaucratic side of things as much as it was to pay for the religious.

The way I see it, there are three categories of people when it comes to taxes and tithing.

  1. The Enforcer: Responsible for setting the rules and enforcing them upon others. This would be a congressman or your pastor
  2. The Receiver: Those who are privileged enough to receive the benefits of the tax or tithe. This could be the enforcer or it could be the receiver and would resemble the poor and lower class.
  3. The Payer: These guys foot the bill. They aren’t in charge of setting the rules and neither do they benefit from them. This would be the middle class or it would those sitting in the pews.

The ultra-rich have no problem paying their taxes. They have the resources and capabilities to hedge against losses. They either have large tax write-offs or can protect their assets in other ways. In the same way, the ultra-rich love tithing. Only 10%? This would be a tax write-off anyway and they get to look so benevolent and great for donating hundreds of thousands or millions. Must be nice to donate a small percentage of your salary and get the most credit.

In 2008 a study on Giving Statistics was done on church spending to show that 85% of the money went to internal operations. Want to know something very ironic about a current liberal friend? The Clinton Foundation (a non-profit) raised 500 million dollars between 2009-2012 and consumed 85% of its donations on internal operations (source)? How do you like that my conservative, evangelical friends who abhor anything Clinton? The Church is using its donations no more wisely than the Clinton Foundation is. Just think about your own Church budget next time you criticize the Clinton Foundation.

Taxes are a mandatory burden and so is tithing. No matter how many different ways I hear it spun in sermons. IT IS STILL A TAX! Pastors will try to put some new age, progressive-sounding spin on it saying that we tithe under grace instead of under the law, or that the New Testament always raises standards, or that we get to tithing but we don’t have to. All of these statements are just placing the sheep’s wool over the wolf to trick you into believing that a rule that looks like the Law, smells like the Law, and acts like the Law, somehow is not the Old Testament Law.

Tithing = Anarchy

Anarchy

Any individual has the ability to stand up and say, “God is calling me to start a ministry”. At that moment, believers then would be required to tithe. Why? Because of the simple fact of their existence. Doesn’t this seem absurd? If you have not seen John Oliver’s example on Comedy Central, the absurdity of what I’m saying is not far off

Levites were required to serve due to their bloodline and in turn, the Israelites were required to give to them because of their own bloodline. Each were bound by the same authority, the same set of laws, and the same stringent legal system. The Levites were bound by the law to serve while being supported by a structure that also bound the givers.

Let’s take an example – The Constitution. The constitution gives authority and direction to Congress, while in turn, the constitution is also the authority that tells supporters how to pay and elect them. Congressmen can’t be free from the constitution to run the country however they please and yet use the constitution (that they themselves aren’t bound to) to enforce others to pay for their ideas. This dysfunctional model would reap major corruption and scandal. The same goes for the gospel. God’s Spirit gives authority and direction to ministers, while in turn, the Holy Spirit is also the authority that tells supporters how to pay and who to elect. Ministers cannot use the law (that they themselves aren’t bound to) to enforce payment for ideas that came from God’s Spirit.

The Bible says that the apostles lived from the Gospel because they preached from the gospel. What does this mean? Does it mean that they lived off the tithe? Did they invoke the Priesthood and Levitical covenant and then expected that they receive the same compensation that they preached upon? Maybe it just means they ate the paper from their scrolls? Or could it mean that they lived off the gospel in the same way in which they were called by the Gospel? A Levite was commissioned by the Law and received their living from the Law. A pastor was commissioned by the Holy Spirit and should receive their living from the Holy Spirit.

Allowing the Spirit to call ministers and allowing the Spirit to call supporters will promote accountability and deter corruption and scandal.

Conclusion

I apologize to all my liberal friends. I congratulate you if you’ve gotten through this post without having an anxiety attack. Go hug a tree and see a social worker for counseling services. You should feel better sometime tonight after you’ve eaten your soy dinner. For my conservative tithing friends. I congratulate you as well. You are now considered the thing you abhorred the most – a Liberal! You’ll feel better after watching a few episodes of Hannity tonight. Keep applying the rules to everyone but yourself, allow the jackasses to rule the media, and keep promoting anarchy since tithing is for liberals.

If you’re bored and want to read the other “Tithing Is For” Series. Here are the links

Continue or Fulfilled: A Litmus Test

by 9 Comments

Surprisingly, 2000 years after the book of Galatians was written we’re still finding ourselves debating law vs grace, fulfilled vs destroyed, old vs new. Very frustrating! I know! The debate on what laws Christ fulfilled and which ones He expanded on can get deep and confusing. Of course, this website is about tithing, so tithing will be an example of how I hope to simplify the debate with a few basic questions.

In order to enforce a law that was commanded in the Old Testament, it must pass a basic test to determine its transcendence into the New Covenant and even more compelling as an eternal principle. There are a few basic questions to ask:

  1. Is it an unchanging law without exceptions?
    (Is it clear from Genesis 1 through Revelation 21?)
  2. Are there any other precedents?
    (Do similar laws make a case for or against it?)
  3. Is it superseded?
    (Is it focused on the outward value or the inward?)

Is the 10% Requirement Consistent & Unchanging?

Since tithing is considered the minimum standard for believers in the New Covenant, then one would think that tithing was the minimum standard for those under the Old Covenant. But look:

  1. Abraham gave from the spoils of war, not his own wealth.
  2. Then the Israelite warriors were told to give only 1/500th of their spoils of war.
  3. The Israelites didn’t tithe from non-farm income or goods sold. (ie: Carpenters, bankers, doctors gave 0% of their income)
  4. No tithes were given at all when outside the promised land when Israel was captive in other countries.
  5. The temple storehouse only received 1% of Israel’s increase; compared to today wherein we hear that 10% is to be given to the Church storehouse.
  6. Tithes from farmlands were only given for 5-6 years out of a 7-year cycle.
  7. Many theologians debate that the minimum was 23%.

10% wasn’t consistent, standardized, universal, or patterned. To diminish its value even more, it wasn’t even the first and neither was it the best. With all these inconsistencies, what is tethering it to the New Testament as a requirement?

Are There Any Other Precedents To Confirm Or Deny?

If you can rationally get past the first hurdle, then one must show how this unfulfilling effort has the ability to transverses the Old and New Covenants without any other precedents.

  1. The only Old Covenant benchmark under 100% that made its way into New Covenant practices without a confirmation to do so is tithing.
  2. As exemplified by the practice of animal sacrifices, clean meats, & circumcision, these Old Covenant rituals began prior to the Mosaic law and ended after Calvary. So being pre-mosaic law does not make it immune from the same fate as these other comparable rituals.
  3. Even though other forms of worship such as prayer, praise, or service had specific requirements in the Old Covenant, the requirements have been dropped from practice in the New Covenant.

Is Tithing Superseded by Forces That Are More Powerful?

Once one gets past these previous two hurdles, then one must be confident that there can be no other spiritual attributes that supersede its physical ones.

  1. 10% is a physical benchmark, not a spiritual one; so it exemplifies a ceremonial law, not a transcendent, spiritual principle.
  2. The Holy Spirit has been clearly established as our counselor on private worship.

Conclusion

I can’t say that my questions are a perfect science and that settles the debate; but through my own experiences, these three questions help answer a few questions in my mind. If a law is unchanging through scripture, has a precedent, and is not superseded; then you’re on your way to finding what eternal principles are in place. In regards to tithing, it was completely demolished by the first question alone, but it was interesting to go even further with demolishing it.

Tithing on Trial Series

by 5 Comments

I’m going to start writing a series of posts to address common arguments and questions used to promote tithing. These arguments have been listed on the 60+ tithing arguments debunked page, but it is not in a format where I can really go into detail. This series of posts are going to be called the “Tithing on Trial” series. As I hear arguments used to promote tithing in the Church, I will address them in this series. On the side menu, you can see a link under the categories for ‘Questions About Tithing’. If you click it in the future, you will see a comprehensive list of posts that address each and every argument to promote tithing.

Here are a few of the pro-tithing questions that are used to argue for the practice of tithing:

Did Jesus Fulfill the Law?

by 21 Comments

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus states, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.“

Frankly, it’s tiring to hear this verse being used, abused, misused, and misinterpreted. When most people use this verse to defend tithing they have no clue what that verse means. When people point to that verse, their purpose is to say, “Look here! See . . . I told you that Jesus wasn’t throwing out the law; He was actually confirming it.”

I get all fidgety because ignorance requires a great measure of restraint. I just wanna shake them, slap them, and scream until my blood vessels are bulging from my eyeballs! Most use Matthew 5:17 to say that Jesus didn’t come to destroy tithing, Jesus fulfilled tithing. This is stated as if Jesus was trying to say that he wanted us to continue obeying all the laws just because he didn’t destroy them.

People only whip this verse out to defend some sort of biblical pet peeve of theirs. Would most people use this verse to defend their stance on stoning children, circumcision, or clean meats? Obviously not. Call it hypocrisy, or inconsistency; I don’t care. Just don’t classify their behavior as a clear, mental state.

Truthfully, I hate when arguments about tithing always whittle down to debates about obeying, defining, and fulfilling the law. I don’t claim to have it all figured out; but to me, if we’re still arguing about the law 2000 years later, we might as well pack our bags and leave the argument. It’s quite laborious and somewhat embarrassing to actually be in a conversation about what Jesus meant when he came to fulfill the law.

Do I really need to take the time to explain why ‘do not kill’ is irrelevant because ‘do not hate’ has always existed? Do I really need to explain that although Jesus emphasized ‘do not hate’ in the New Testament, this doesn’t mean He was raising the standards? Do i really need to give the difference between eternal laws, compared to civil and ceremonial laws? Do I need to explain to you why giving 10% is just as effective as circumcision is? Seriously? Do I really?

Did Jesus fulfill the law? Of course, he did. What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘fulfill’? Here’s a short synopsis of the definition of fulfill from blueletterbible.org

  1. To make full
  2. To complete
  3. To carry through to the end
  4. To accomplish

What part of the definition of fulfill makes a strong case to continue or confirm tithing? I seem to get the feel of termination from the words ‘complete’, ‘end’, and ‘accomplish’. I’ve used this analogy before, so I’ll use it again. Let’s say I gave you an empty bucket, and I wanted you to use it to gather rainwater. Once the bucket was full, could you continue to use it to gather more rainwater? You would either need to get a new bucket or empty that one out. Filling the bucket up wouldn’t abolish the purpose of that bucket, it would just abolish your reason to continue its use.

Romans 7:4 states, “My brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another“

So, did Jesus fulfill the law?  I’m not saying I have it all figured out, but my final question to you is, which bucket are you still carrying around? The one that’s full or the one that needs to be filled?

Challenging First Fruit Tithing

by 1 Comment

As I was going over some news about tithing and offerings in the church, I noticed how more and more churches are allowing debit and credit card payments for the tithe and offerings. In the back of my mind, I’m wondering what the pastors think about the financial fees that the church pays for using a visa or master card. I’m wondering if they are going to start telling their people to pay 11% of a tithe just to cover the fees. Obviously, the credit card fees are deducted from what the churches receive so that they won’t be receiving a full tenth.

Also, the churches who tithe to other charities from what they receive; I’m wondering whether or not they will be willing to give a tithe from their first fruits (before the finance charges). It would be interesting if they could justify giving a tenth from after the finance charges are taken out, and not justify the congregation from giving a tenth on their net income.

My logic and questioning here sound so bizarre and almost funny, but I guarantee many of the churches have pondered these questions. It blows my mind when tithe teachers say that “we shouldn’t follow the exact law of the old testament tithing, but follow the general rule of giving 10% to the Lord’s work”. It blows my mind because we say that the tithe is a “general” rule but we’ve gotta ask questions about, finance charges, should I do this on net or gross, what about profits, increase, first fruits, at the beginning at the end of the week, how should I, when should I, where should i . .. . in front of the church, behind the church, at the info desk, should I give cash, checks, or credit cards, what about my retirement money, what about my pension, what about my disability, can I give to the church, can I give to my pastor, what about charities, what about my bills, what about my debt workman’s comp, insurance payouts, food stamps, unemployment income, tax returns, rebates, . . . and bla bla bla, and on and on the questions come. Tithing is not a “general” rule or principle for that matter, when you’ve gotta hire a financial guide just to figure out how, when, and where you should tithe.

Even though our leaders have substituted Spiritually empowered giving with an Old Testament law, they still expect the Holy Spirit to intervene.