This brings me to the next anti-tither argument on my agenda:
Every believer in the New Covenant is a priest according to 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6. Therefore, ministers and church employees are no more entitled to tithes than any other person in the church.To begin, let’s take a look at these verses:
1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
Revelation 1:6The New Testament writers here state very clearly that all New Covenant believers are priests, kings, and holy. But, then again, Moses wrote that all Israelites were priests and holy under the Old Covenant:
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever.
Exodus 19:5-6Yet we all know that only the Levites were to receive tithe and, further still, only the sons of Aaron were actually to be priests! If we look to the book of Isaiah, we find the following about the restoration of Israel:
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
Isaiah 61:6-7Indeed, the Israelites are going to be a kingdom of priests at a future time. Similarly, we also find that New Covenant believers will be priests at a future time (rather than now):
But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, they shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast. Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, and instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion…. Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
Revelation 20:6Notice that “they shall be priests” and that they “shall reign” - No Christian has yet attained these things, and none will until Christ returns to bring God’s Kingdom, in which we will reign forever. This effectively debunks the first part of the argument, which stated that all believers in the New Covenant are currently priests.
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
But this begs another question - are ministers in the Church of God priests today? The bible never says that they are. The entire premise of the anti-tither argument is that only the Levites could receive tithes. Ministers today are obviously not Levites, and I have now shown that they are not priests either (since none of us are yet). How is it, then, that they are any more qualified to receive tithe than anyone else in the Church? The solution is simple:
1 Corinthians 9:13-14Levites were entitled to receive tithe because of their service in the physical Temple; therefore, those who serve the spiritual Temple and preach the gospel are even more entitled to it.
Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
You said, "therefore, those who serve the spiritual Temple and preach the gospel are even more entitled to it."
ReplyDeleteThat's what makes your arguments a joke. You make them up using YOUR logic and drawing YOUR conclusions instead of sticking with the scriptures.
You also said, "The entire premise of the anti-tither argument is that only the Levitical priests could receive tithes."
The Israelites took the tithe to the NON-PRIEST Levites, and the non-priest Levites gave a tenth of the tithe to the priests. The Levites were servants to the priests.
true that, i am all for giving, pastors need money, especially those who have neglected their future, childrens education, but please it cannot be mandatory for every poor man to cough up.
Deleteyes the author above is using his own logic,- this is called ad - hominem. the author has to stick to the bible while debating the bible or at the max, other biblical sources.
Anonymous,
DeleteIf tithing were done the way that it should, the poor would be receiving support from the Church. God commanded 3 separate tithes. The first was given to the Levites and the second used for celebrating the Holy Days, and these 2 were done every year. The 3rd tithe was set apart by each person once every 3 years (in a 7 year cycle, so years 3 and 6 out of every 7 years), and this tithe was to be given to the poor, the widow, the fatherless, the stranger, and the Levite.
But when you say "it cannot be mandatory for ever poor man to cough up," what exactly do you mean? God made no provision for the poor to be exempt from tithing. Rather, He made provision in the law for the tithes of others (as well as their general kindness at all times) to supply their needs. Was God unfair in doing this in the Old Covenant?
"You make them up using YOUR logic and drawing YOUR conclusions instead of sticking with the scriptures."
ReplyDeleteI'm drawing the only conclusion that makes sense under my assumptions, and the problem is that you don't accept the premise on which I have argued. I established in previous articles in this series that I believe that the law (all of it) is in effect. As a result, we must keep tithes (first, second, and third). Paul said himself that those who minister to the physical temple eat of the holy things of the temple, and we are also told that the Church of God is the Temple of God in the New Covenant. Those who preach the gospel are serving the New Covenant Temple. Under these premises, my conclusion is the only one that makes any sense. If you want to argue that my premise about the law is flawed, then you are free to do so - I've already argued for why I accept this premise in previous articles.
Either way, I don't think it's fair to call my arguments a joke.
"The Israelites took the tithe to the NON-PRIEST Levites, and the non-priest Levites gave a tenth of the tithe to the priests. The Levites were servants to the priests."
I don't see where it says that Israel specifically took their tithe to the non-priest Levites. Yes, the non-priests took the tithe of the tithe that they received to the sons of Aaron, but this does not necessarily exclude the sons of Aaron from receiving the regular tithe from the Israelites in addition to this from the Levites. I can't think of anywhere that the bible makes this distinction, but please let me know if I'm mistaken.
Once God chose Aaron and his sons to be the priests, they are called priests in the KJV, not Levites. The non-priest Levites are the only ones referred to as Levites from that point on.
ReplyDeleteYou use the assumption that the law carries forward for all three tithes. But the law required a tenth of crops raised on the Holy land, and every tenth animal in herds and flocks raised on the Holy land. The law required the tithe come from God's increase, not man's income. The Israelite farmers didn't tithe on their income from the sale and/or barter exchange of the crops and animals. It didn't matter what their income was. While money was required to pay the Temple Tax (tribute in KJV), money was not used to pay the tithe.
You aren't following any of the three tithes commanded by God. You are changing them to make it work for today as though God didn't know the future and expected man to revise His Word to fit the times.
While I do see that in many places the distinction is made between priests and Levites, I'm not convinced that blanket statements made about Levites would not apply to the priests also since, after all, they were still Levites. Either way, I overlooked the obvious error that you were pointing out in quoting from the post - I did mess up there by saying that tithe only went to the "Levitical priests" when I should have simply said "Levites." It shall be fixed.
ReplyDeleteConcerning what qualifies for tithe:
As I stated from the beginning of the series, I'm taking these arguments in logical stages. If the law were done away, then tithing, as part of the law, would be totally irrelevant and no further discussion would be needed, so I first showed that the law is not done away. Next, if the law of tithing was solely for the purpose of supporting the Levites (and ONLY the Levites), then clearly ministers today would have no claim to tithes and no further discussion would be needed - the law of tithe would be "done away" out of a lack of opportunity to apply it - so I argued against that in this (and the last) article.
The final argument to be had, as you have just stated, is over what the tithe is - does it apply to income or just to produce and herds? In order for this question to even be relevant to consider, one has to first reach the conclusions that tithe is still relevant and that there is someone eligible to receive it. Now that I have reached that point in the argument, I'll be dealing with this question in the next article.
I believe there is a difference between the Levites and Aaron....They are all Levites BUT not all levites are priests....these verses seem to prove this to me what do you think? Ex 28:1, 29:9 and ICron 23:2
ReplyDeleteThe Levites were given to aaron, the priesthood....
Yes, you understand correctly. Aaron himself was a Levite, and so were his sons. The question then becomes an administrative one that I don't think there is much evidence concerning. Were the priests, being Levites, given a regular share of the tithe of the people of Israel in addition to the tithe of the tithe that they received from the rest of the Levites, or were they given only the tithe of the tithe from the rest of the Levites?
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that they would have received a regular portion of the tithes - the same that any Levite would receive - first. Then they, along with all of the other Levites, would separate a tithe out of what they were given, and this new pool would be redistributed evenly to the priests. The reason I hold this view is based on the fact that God intended tithing to be a lesson to the people (Deuteronomy 14:23), and I don't think the priests would be exempt from needing to learn that lesson. In the same way, I don't think that wage-earners would be exempt from needing to learn that lesson, which is part of the reason I don't buy the arguments that tithe was only on food items.
All Levites were considered priesthood. Only 30 to 50 y.o. serves in the sanctuary. Is this your current understanding?
ReplyDeleteNo, that is incorrect. Only the Levites who were also male descendants of Aaron could be priests. Numbers 3-4 describes the full breakdown. Levi, the son of Jacob from whom all Levites are descended, had 3 sons: Kohath, Gershon and Merari. Aaron and his brother Moses were 4 generations down from Levi through Kohath. In Numbers 3, it's explained that only Aaron's family could serve as priests. The rest of the Levites had duties before God in care of the tabernacle (and later the Temple) and in teaching the people, but they were not priests ("priest" has a more specific meaning in the bible, in other words). Those duties are broken down and organized by which of the 3 sub-tribes of Levi they belonged to - Kohath, Gershon or Merari.
Delete