Allow me to first state the argument that I will be refuting:
God commanded that the Israelites tithe on crops grown in the Holy Land and on herds and flocks raised in the Holy Land. The law required the tithe to come only from God's increase - not man's; therefore, it is wrong to tithe on any form of income other than crops or livestock that were raised in Israel.Last time, I addressed the part of this argument which claims that tithing was geographically restricted to the land of Israel, and I will now be addressing the claim that tithing was restricted only to agricultural products (thereby not applying to monetary income today).
To begin, let me first admit that there is no scripture which plainly says people should tithe on monetary income. Several of the admonitions to tithe in the bible use inclusive phrases such as "the tithe of everything" or "the tithe of all," but all of the commands that do specify what to tithe on list only agricultural products (although, as I'll show in the next article in the series, some of these products are not merely "crops and herds," and this is significant.)
In light of the bible's silence on the specific issue of tithing on money, a favorite approach of anti-tithers is to say that there isn't a single scripture that says to tithe on money that you earn for working. This is technically true if you interpret phrases such as the "tithe of everything" as saying the "tithe of everything that has been specifically listed to be tithed on." On the other hand, there are other scriptures and practical considerations that give us reason to believe that tithe was not merely restricted to crops, herds, or anything otherwise classified as "God's increase." Today, I'm going to focus on one of the practical considerations, and in the next post I'll examine this concept of "God's increase" by looking at some of the products that were supposed to be tithed on.
Second Tithe is Overlooked by Most Who Advocate Tithing
One key point that is often overlooked in tithing discussions is the 2nd tithe. Anti-tithers love to bring up 2nd tithe in order to show people that they aren't "biblically tithing." This casts considerable doubt on people who don't keep 2nd tithe, which includes the vast majority of Christianity; however, I firmly believe that 2nd (and 3rd) tithe are a part of God's law, all of which is required for Christians today. While 1st tithe was given to the Levites as an inheritance in exchange for their service in the temple, people were commanded to use 2nd tithe as a means with which to celebrate God's annual Holy Days outlined in Leviticus 23. Most of Christianity today wrongly rejects God's feasts and, along with them, the 2nd tithe that would be used to celebrate them.
In any case, let's consider the ramifications of the fact that 2nd tithe is the means of celebrating the festivals. Everyone is commanded to celebrate the feasts, which requires traveling to the place where God chooses, and everyone is required to use their 2nd tithe to celebrate them.
Deuteronomy 12:17-18Everyone is expected to keep the feasts - not just farmers - and all are commanded to rejoice before God in all to which they put their hands - not just in their animals and veggies. Though animals, crops, and resulting products are specifically mentioned, the command broadly states that we are to rejoice in the product of our labor. A similar statement is made back in verse 7:
You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or the heave offering of your hand. But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses... and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God in all to which you put your hands.
Deuteronomy 12:7Since everyone has to celebrate the feasts and consuming the 2nd tithe was the means of doing so, it is illogical to think that God made no provision for non-farmers to accumulate 2nd tithe by restricting tithing to agricultural products. Doesn't God bless things that we "put our hands to" other than crops and livestock?
And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the LORD your God has blessed you.
Deuteronomy 14:23If one of the reasons for keeping 2nd tithe is "that you may learn to fear the LORD your God," then is there some reason why only the people with animals or crops need to learn this lesson?
And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24-26If you lived really far from Jerusalem (the place where the festivals were celebrated in ancient Israel) and you did not have animals or crops to keep 2nd tithe on and to exchange for money, then wouldn't it be really difficult to take your whole family there for a week? The feasts were a requirement and a blessing, not a privilege or a burden as many would make them out to be.
But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
In the same way that a farmer's crops and herds won't produce well without God's blessing, neither will anyone else's endeavors; therefore, every person should give thanks to God for their increase by tithing on it, whatever form it may be in. From a practical standpoint, the requirement for every man in Israel to appear in Jerusalem 3 times a year for the feasts (Deuteronomy 16:16), with one of those times involving a week-long stay for the entire family (Deuteronomy 14:26), and these feasts being celebrated by consuming the 2nd tithe (Deuteronoomy 14:24-26), it does not make sense for tithing to have been required solely from farmers.
Though I haven't developed this topic fully yet, I'm going to stop here for this post. In the next article, I'll consider the dichotomy that anti-tithers make between "man's income" versus "God's increase," and in doing so I'll examine some specific items from the lists of things to tithe on, as I hinted at earlier in this post. Hopefully this will keep the comments for this post focused to my argument concerning 2nd tithe so that a separate discussion can be had later concerning the concept of whether there is a distinction between God's increase and man's increase.
You conveniently left out Deut 14:22.
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy 14:22 (KJV) - Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deuteronomy 14:23 (KJV) - And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Notice: V23 - and thou shalt eat..... THE TITHE of.....
You don't eat money.
Yep Good catch.
DeleteI left verse 22 out for brevity and because I don't see a problem that it introduces that I haven't acknowledged elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that you don't eat money, you haven't done anything to address my argument. What if you have no income in the form of food to tithe on - then how does the command to "eat before the LORD your God in the place where He chooses" apply? In such a case, what are you commanded to eat and how much of it?
The other alternative is that such a person's family is somehow exempt from keeping the feast because of this issue, but this has absolutely no scriptural support (that I'm aware of) and I've never heard anyone articulate this view.
You said, "What if you have no income in the form of food to tithe on..."
ReplyDeleteThe Israelite farmers did not tithe on their income. Until you have the revelation that the Biblical tithe was ALWAYS on assets and NEVER on income, you can't possibly understand the tithe at all. You don't accept this Biblical fact (not by interpretation, but by definition); therefore, your conclusions will always be wrong.
All through Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, ALL Israelites participated in the festivals. Therefore, ONLY those who had the proper tithe could bring the food. The others just brought themselves.
Your whole tithing series is based on false assumptions.
Can you clarify the distinction that you are making between "assets" and "income?" In my view, the acquisition of new assets is a form of income. I just want to eliminate these semantic issues before engaging further :)
ReplyDeleteAs for the other people "just bringing themselves" to the feast, I see no scriptural support for one person eating another person's 2nd tithe, except for the person's own household as well as the poor and the Levite that the person reaches out to at those times, which cases are stated in scripture.
When teaching the topic of tithing, I begin by giving a short accounting class in assets and income.
ReplyDeleteExamples of assets include:
buildings
land
farm equipment
trees
crops
animals
house
car
inventory
Examples of income include proceeds from the:
sale of crops
sale of animals
sale of inventory
Proceeds can be in the form of money, services, or any other type of exchange.
For a farmer to tithe on their assets and animals would be the same as if a retailer tithed on their INVENTORY, whether anything is sold or not.
If you click on the link to my site, you can read my very short class on how to distinguish between assets and income. Being a retired account and tax auditor, this is my expertise.
After reading your breakdown of assets vs. income on your website, I'd like to talk about trees for a minute. I agree that a tree that a farmer owns is an asset. If apples grow on that tree this year, then the farmers has acquired new assets (in the form of apples) as a product of time and ownership of the tree.
ReplyDeleteWhen the fruit matures on the tree, the farmer has received an increase - he went from having a tree to having a tree and fruit.
Your description of assets on your website includes cash. If you loan your cash at 5% interest, then you acquire more cash - again, just as with the tree, as a product of time and ownership of the cash. You've said yourself that cash is an asset, but you've made the distinction that additional cash earned in interest is income - even though it's merely an acquisition of new assets.
In light of this, how can you say that the fruit produced by a tree is not also income in the same what that interest is? Newly acquired assets resulting from the maturity of existing assets are, by definition, income - whether those assets are money or food is irrelevant. This nicely fits the 2nd part of the definition of income from your website, "something that comes in as an addition or increase, esp. by chance."
You said, "In light of this, how can you say that the fruit produced by a tree is not also income in the same what that interest is?"
ReplyDeleteJust check with any accountant. IF the fruit on the trees is income, you would have to report that as income on your tax return. The term "income" is an accounting term. The fruit on the trees do not meet the definition of income. When the fruit is sold, the proceeds are income.
IF it's income, it has to be reported as income on an income tax return.
I have yet to find a pastor who can give me the correct definition of gross income, yet they use the term as though they are an expert in the field of accounting.
I am a retired accountant. I have a B.S. degree in accounting. I was a tax auditor for the State of California for well over 20 years. I have had my own tax preparation business. I know this subject well.
All income may be considered "increase," but all increase is not income.
You said, "Newly acquired assets resulting from the maturity of existing assets are, by definition, income - whether those assets are money or food is irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteNot correct. Example: You have a 2-year savings certificate. The interest is taxable as it is earned, on a yearly basis. After 2 years the certificate automatically matures and renews with a NEW certificate at the going rate if you don't cash it in. The new certificate is not income.
I can't think of even ONE example where a newly acquired asset resulting from the maturity of existing assets is income.
From a philosophical standpoint, as I pointed out, there is no difference between the gains from interest on a loan and the fruit born by a tree. The technical distinction that you are clinging here to is a construct of our modern legal system.
ReplyDeleteThe only legitimate points that I see for you to try to make at this point in the discussion are to:
(1) Try to explain the philosophical difference between trees maturing and investments maturing (which I already argued why I think that there is none)
-or-
(2) Try to demonstrate somehow that the bible makes the same technical distinction between "newly acquired cash assets" and "newly acquired non-cash assets" that our present government does (which I don't believe there is evidence for).
You won't find the words "asset" or "income" in the KJV of the Bible. Yet pastors introduce an accounting term, "income" or "gross income" when teaching the Bible. They do so without the background necessary to understand these terms.
ReplyDeleteThere are General Accounting Principles, and Standards for International Financial Reporting that are used world wide. If we are going to determine what is income, and be consistent around the world, we must use these standards.
Since the Bible doesn't tell us the fruit on the tree is income, we can only come up with a conclusion if we use today's standards and apply it to the Bible.
The Israelite farmers SOLD and/or exchanged the fruit from the tree which created income using today's definition of income. Yet the tithe had NOTHING to do with what they received for the sale or exchange.
In today's word, we can't use "philosophical standpoints" to determine what is income and what is not. Doing so would do nothing but confuse and would create inconsistencies depending on who was making the determination.
The Bible doesn't use the term "income" for the tithe. It also doesn't use the term "asset" for the tithe. Therefore, if we are going to use the terms income or assets and apply it to the Bible, we must use what is generally accepted as an accurate definition. You want to say something is income when the accepted worldwide standards does NOT consider fruit on a tree income.
Again, I urge you to check with a Certified Accountant. Don't try to use common sense or anything else. If you are not an accountant, don't use accounting terms unless you verify that you are using the terms correctly.
You are getting stuck on trying to compare cash with non-cash.
ReplyDeleteCash, or money, has nothing to do with this. We are dealing with the definition of income vs the definition of assets. Income doesn't have to be money. It can be products or services.
If your dog has puppies, are the puppies income?
If you have a garden in your yard, are the fruits and vegetables that grow considered income to you?
Also, you are trying to compare God's miracles with investments. The Biblical tithe ALWAYS came from God's miracles.
When using accounting terms, you must stick with accepted accounting principles. Otherwise, each can just make up his own rules and definitions.
If you consider the fruit on a tree as income, then what do you consider the money received from selling the fruit? Is the money ALSO income?
ReplyDeleteI happen to live in an agricultural area of California. There are farms all around me. None of these farmers consider the fruit on their trees as income. And none of the churches in the area want a tenth of the fruit, either. They ask for a tenth of the INCOME they receive from SELLING the fruit.
So in your view, God's command should be interpreted through the lens of these General Accounting Principles that are accepted by men as the standard today. I simply disagree, because it's obvious to me that the difference between what you call an increase in assets (fruit growing on a tree) and an income (interest on a loan) is a mere technicality by which men judge for our own tax purposes. It's a totally contrived distinction with no scriptural backing, and to hinge points of doctrine on the decision of carnal men is not ideal. Instead, we should examine the scriptures logically and try to infer the intent from the context, and this is one of my goals in this series.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I'll try to refrain from saying "income" in the future and use the word "increase" instead. Perhaps you should clarify "taxable income" where you usually say "income," for the sake of other readers who may not be attune to this distinction.
Furthermore, your statement that "income doesn't have to be money, it can be products or services" is confusing to me in light of our discussion, as it seems to justify my point that the fruit on a tree is income. How are you defining the word "product?" I only ask because I would classify wine as a product, given my layman's interpretation of the word, which would mean that wine would be income - and we both know that wine is specifically listed to be tithed on, meaning that you would, in such a case, be tithing on income.
I think part of our disagreement is that I view the fruit as equivalent to its cash value for the purpose of tithing, while you insist that the physical fruit itself is distinct from its cash value for the purpose of tithing. I don't see the scriptural support for this, especially in view of Deuteronomy 14:24-25.
"Also, you are trying to compare God's miracles with investments. The Biblical tithe ALWAYS came from God's miracles."
I have some interesting points about this for the next article. For now, I would just say that you can't neglect the work that man puts in - no one tithed on the produce during the land Sabbath of the 7th year, which was entirely God's miracle with no human intervention.
Let me give an example as to when a bottle of wine would be income.
ReplyDeleteIf I prepared your tax return and you PAID me with a bottle of wine, that bottle of wine would be income to me. It would be payment to me for services rendered.
In the Old Testament, there was a lot of bartering. There is still bartering going on today. If an Israelite farmer barter-exchanged a basket of apples for a basket of oranges, the oranges would be his income, and the apples would be the income of the other party. Since barter exchanges were common during the Old Testament, and we know that there were markets for the farmers to sell and buy fruits, vegetables, etc. from the crops, and to sell and buy animals, and since the tithe was not on these transactions, whether you want to use the word income, increase, or whatever, we get back to the tithe was on the assets themselves. It had nothing to do with how man uses accounting today.
You said, "I view the fruit as equivalent to its cash value for the purpose of tithing, while you insist that the physical fruit itself is distinct from its cash value for the purpose of tithing."
The fruit obviously had a cash value since it could be redeemed by the tither. And the cash value had to be known if the tithe was going to be redeemed. But to redeem the tithe, the command required a fifth to be added to it. But the tithe wasn't on the proceeds from a sale or exchange of that fruit.
You won't find even one example in the scriptures where anyone tithed on any transaction dealing with the crops; i.e. a sale or barter exchange, nor will you find even one example where anyone tithed on wages, or on fish, etc. etc. You won't find even one example where the tithe was money.
I believe the KJV is the best version of the Holy Bible that we have. But sometimes other versions MIGHT help to clarify a point.
Deuteronomy 14:28 (KJV) At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
Deuteronomy 14:28 (NASB) “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town.
Deuteronomy 14:28 (RSV) “At the end of every three years you shall bring forth all the tithe of your produce in the same year, and lay it up within your towns;
Deuteronomy 14:28 (NIV) At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns,
"thine increase" in the KJV is referring to their share of the produce that God increased.
"we get back to the tithe was on the assets themselves. It had nothing to do with how man uses accounting today."
ReplyDeleteI think the plainest way for me to state my position is that any increase in assets should be tithed on, and that I consider wages to be an increase in assets.
You do have a point concerning redemption - after looking into this, Leviticus 27:31 makes it clear that I was wrong about the fruit being equivalent to its cash value for tithing:
Leviticus 27:31 - "If a man wants at all to redeem any of his tithes, he shall add one-fifth to it."
The conclusion then is that any increase in assets should be done in this way: either give 10% in the form of raw products or redeem it in the amount of 12% (that is, 10% plus 1/5th of 10%).
Additionally, I think that we might be looking at redemption a bit narrowly. For example, if I wanted to keep $10 worth of apples that were part of the tithe, is there any reason why I couldn't pay the $12 required in a form other than money? In the same way, consider if a wage-earner also had a garden. He tithes on his garden and on his wages. If he wants to keep the veggies instead of give them as tithe, he has to pay their value plus a fifth. Alternatively, if he wants to keep some of his money instead of giving it as tithe, he could redeem the money with an equivalent amount of veggies plus a fifth.
Also, I think the example about transactions requires more study. If it's a trade of equal value between two people who have already tithed on the raw products, then you're right - there is no need to tithe on the proceeds. If one of them gets the better deal though (say he trades 100 oranges worth of apples for 110 oranges), then he should tithe on his increase, which was 10 oranges (meaning he would give 1 orange and keep 1 for the feast).
Also, the Hebrew word for "increase" (Strong's H8393) is broad. For example, it's translated as "gain" in Proverbs 3:14 in reference to gaining wisdom - "For [wisdom's] proceeds are better than the profits of silver, And her gain than fine gold."
Was the increase of ALL assets tithable under the Old Testament commands? NO.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus 27:32 (KJV) And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.
Notice that the tithe was on ONLY animals in herds and flocks.
We learn from history that by the middle of the 13th century, the Church's claim to tithes was extended to include the poultry of the yard and the cattle of the stall, to the catch of fish and the game of the forests. Had tithing in the Old Testament been on everything as some have
claimed, there would have been no need to expand the definition.
You can put a spin on this all you want. It doesn't change what God commanded.
Consider this: When the children of Israel reached the promised land, with their animals, etc., every "family" had a farm. But every "family member" was not a farmer. They had all kinds of occupations. But the "family" had a farm, and the tithe was on the crops and animals in herds and flocks, NOT on the wages or other types of income from the "family members." The command to tithe wasn't on each individual, but rather on the "children of Israel" as a nation, or as a whole. Church leaders put the tithe down to the individual level which is wrong. Putting the tithe down to the individual level creates all kinds of problems; i.e. some tithed, some did not. It creates the problem of understanding that ALL attended the yearly feast, but not all tithed. When you see the big picture that the tithe was on the nation as a whole, and not the individual, everything makes sense.
You said, "The conclusion then is that any increase in assets should be done in this way: either give 10% in the form of raw products or redeem it in the amount of 12% (that is, 10% plus 1/5th of 10%)."
ReplyDeleteIf your house goes up in value, your assets have increased. This is not income, but it is an increase in assets. If your house goes up $20,000 in value, are you saying one should either give a tenth of the increase in the house by giving the proper portion of the house, OR one should give $2,400 (12% of the increased value)? What happens when your assets go DOWN in value? Should the church then give you 12% (or 10%) of the decrease?
Or do you say you ignore asset decreases? In which case, if your $100,000 house goes down in value over a period of a few years to, lets say, $75,000, then it increases to $80,000, do you tithe on that increase in asset value?
OR, are you saying increase means it has to grow IN SIZE and not just value?
As you can see, using the word increase opens up another whole set of questions.
You do have a point - further clarification is needed in cases where existing assets increase or decrease in value. If the asset increase is something new that you can hold in your hand (i.e. newly grown fruit or cash payment for labor), then tithe directly on the new assets. If the asset increase is due to a change in value of something that you own (i.e. something that you previously bought as an investment), then that increase is irrelevant if left in that form since you haven't gained anything tangible (i.e. if I don't sell my house, I get no benefit from the fact that it's value has increased).
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to how a merchant makes a living - if he goes out and buys $50 of oranges and then their value increases, then he hasn't gained anything until he actually sells them and ends up with more than $50, at which time he should tithe on whatever exceeds that amount. Alternatively, if the oranges go down in value and he loses money, then he can deduct the loss from gains of other sales.
I have no regard for the teachings of the Catholic Church - anything that they have done or said doctrinally is irrelevant to me. Quoting sources close to the time of the early church (1st century) could potentially be relevant, but the historically visible portion of Christianity after this time is almost entirely corrupt.
I'm convinced that it makes more sense for the tithe to be on the individual level because of the lessons that tithing teaches. Everyone owes God the same for the blessings they receive.
What about a carpenter who builds himself a house. He pays for the materials, but then uses his labor to put it all together. There is an asset that you can touch, that has grown in size and value. But the carpenter does not sell it. Does he tithe on the increase in value from the materials to the finished product?
ReplyDeleteIf not, why would a farmer tithe on the fruit increase if he hasn't also sold it? Suppose it is a small crop and the farmer keeps it for himself? Just like the carpenter keeps the house for himself? Answer: Because God commanded the increase in the fruit to be tithed.
You aren't being consistent unless you treat the farmer and the carpenter the same.
What about the woman who sews and makes her children their clothes. She buys the materials, then uses her labor to put it all together into a finished product worth the cost of the materials PLUS the value of her labor. Does she tithe on that increase in value? The asset can be held in your hand, and it grew in size and value.
What about the artist that paints a valuable picture but keeps it for himself. Does he tithe on the increase of value between the supplies used and the completed value?
No example in the Bible where the tax collector tithed on his wages. No example in the Bible where anyone tithed on the increase of any asset other than from crops and animals in herds and flocks.
I have already shown that not all increase was tithable under the Old Testament. Animals ONLY in herds and flocks. Not any others.
I can go on and on with examples where someone's assets increase IN SIZE and in value but kept for one's own use.
It appears that I missed one of your comments early on in this discussion (on 8/10) - sorry about that! I usually do all of my moderation via e-mail, and I'll have to make sure to be more diligent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I need to retract my previous statement on redemption - I went beyond what is written and failed to properly consider the context. Rather than explaining here, I'll save the topic for a future article (hopefully soon!) since a proper understanding of Leviticus 27 will be relevant to this discussion.
As for your last comment about assets that increase in size/value but are kept for one's own use: yes, I think that they need to tithe on the increase of their labor. This makes sense: if I paid someone to do it, they should tithe on what I paid them; therefore, if I perform the skill for myself that I would have paid for otherwise, then God should still get His portion.
Concerning your statement, "I have already shown that not all increase was tithable under the Old Testament." As I pointed out in the article, if you interpret phrases such as the 'tithe of everything' as saying the 'tithe of everything that has been specifically listed to be tithed on,' then you have "shown" what you have claimed. However, in light of no clear specification of these being the only things to tithe on and in light of other considerations of practicality and principle (such as the 2nd tithe argument I presented), I see no reason to consider the bible's silence on these matters as definitive.
Therefore, you will have every single housewife tithing on the value of their labor to make clothes for the family, and even for baking a cake. The ingredients to bake a cake are not worth the same as the completed cake. The cake is an asset until eaten.
ReplyDeleteIf you hire someone to mow your lawn, you pay them, and according to you they would tithe on that increase. Suppose you mow your own lawn? Do you tithe on what you would have paid someone else?
Clean clothes are worth more than dirty clothes. When you do your own laundry, do you tithe on the value according to what someone would have charged you to do it?
When the wife cooks a meal for the family, is the value of her labor tithable?
Why it is that you find absolutely no scripture showing that God commanded anything other than food to be tithable? Don't you see that in all three tithes, it amounts to a food distribution method?
And why, using your arguments, does it have to be an asset to be tithable? Why not just labor, itself? Then you could tithe on what you would have paid someone else to type this blog for you.
You want a person to tithe on their labor of building a house for themselves, but not for a mother who gives her son a haircut? You are saying one is an increase to an asset, but the other example there is no increase in an asset even though the mother would have had to pay someone else to give the haircut.
You are opening a can of worms that will cause nothing but confusion.
As a matter of fact, I am going to make the point in the next tithing article that labor is tithable.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent a person chooses to take this is their business, but we're all ultimately going to be judged by God's standards rather than our own - our job is to try to determine what God's standards are for our lives. For example, Christ pointed out the Pharisees' diligence in tithing on their herbs in Matthew 23 and commended it (though they lacked other things). This was seen by the Pharisees as an unusually strict observance that they were proud of - but, though Christ said that they should be doing this, He didn't deride others who were not as meticulous.
My point is this: we should be as meticulous as we are able. A simple way of covering all of the above examples that you point out is by doing things for others in addition to doing them for yourself.
Also, I have a question. If the tithe was on the produce of the nation rather than the individual, then was it a sin for a farmer not to harvest his entire crop in order to ensure that the tithe would be kept on every ear of corn?
You asked, "...was it a sin for a farmer not to harvest his entire crop in order to ensure that the tithe would be kept on every ear of corn?"
ReplyDeleteThe farmer was not allowed to harvest the entire crop.
Leviticus 23:22 (KJV) And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Therefore, the tithe was on the NET harvest, not the GROSS increase.
As far as Matthew 23:23, the scribes and Pharisees were teachers and lawyers yet Jesus didn't tell them they should be tithing on their income from their professions. They were to tithe on God's increase of the land.
So are the poor who eat the gleanings depriving the Levites of their inheritance since the gleanings are not tithed on? What if a farmer leaves an entire field unharvested - for whatever reason?
ReplyDeleteMatthew 23 does nothing for your argument. I already stated that He was commending them for being particularly diligent by going to a length that most people didn't think to go to, so if tithing on the wages from your profession was expected (as I believe it was) then this still makes sense. There is nothing there to contradict a requirement of tithing on monetary income.
You asked, "So are the poor who eat the gleanings depriving the Levites of their inheritance since the gleanings are not tithed on? What if a farmer leaves an entire field unharvested - for whatever reason?"
ReplyDeleteScripture doesn't answer these questions. Since I don't believe tithing is for today, there is no need for the scriptures to give us all the details. However, if tithing was for today, I think God would have given us clear instructions as to how to tithe and where to take the tithe.
Your assumptions are that tithe was for the nation as a whole and that it was on God's miracle of food production. I'll explain the point that my question makes under these assumptions, for anyone else reading along.
ReplyDeleteUnder these assumptions, the farmer would be obligated to pay tithe on everything that grows on his land - not just what he reaps. Taking this one step further, anything that grew naturally would also need to be tithed on, this also being God's miracle and part of the nation's food production. This would mean that the Israelites would have to carefully tend every square foot of land in the country in order to properly keep the tithe.
I don't believe that this was God's intent. On the other hand, if tithe is on the result of a man's labor at the individual level, then there are no such complications outside of the purview of one's own responsibility.
Can you explain to me why there isn't even one example of anyone tithing on their "labor" other than crops and animals?
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it that ONLY the tithe from the crops could be redeemed but not the animals? How would one know what can be redeemed and what can't be redeemed if you expand the tithe to all labor? If a person is a fisherman, must he give a tenth of the fish, or can he redeem the tithe can give the money instead?
Who is supposed to make up the rules now?
I appreciate you allowing this conversation to continue.
In studying Leviticus 27, it seems to me that God singled out crops and livestock because He wanted them treated in a special way rather than because He wanted to exclude anything else from being tithed on. It's an ongoing study, so I don't want to elaborate too much until I reach a firm conclusion. You do have a valid point, and answering it (one way or the other) is part of the goal of my current personal study.
ReplyDeleteConcerning why there isn't an example of anyone tithing on other forms of labor, this is a matter of interpretation, and I think I've pointed this out in one of the articles. For example, it says in 2 Chronicles 31:5-6 that the people brought in the "tithe of everything," and that "the tithe of the holy things consecrated to the LORD thier God they laid in heaps" (this was in addition to the oxen and sheep, it says.)
I note one comment from Gary pointing to the KJV as the best authority. The masoretic hebrew is a better authority and the pre 70 CE mishnah commentaries are very helpful.
ReplyDeleteIn all of the tanach and the brit hadashah, as well as in creation I see a God of extravagance and excess. Why try to limit what we can give to God and to others with arguments from US accountancy laws? Look for reasons to give and give more. The tanach allows for giving 100% of increase.
David Messianic leader
david@beit-ezra.org.il
Tithing does not put an upper bound on how much a person can give. In fact, giving above and beyond the tithes has always been more than a mere possibility - it's the law. Deuteronomy 16:16-17, for example, states that additional offerings were mandatory for every man 3 times a year at the festivals, and that it should be given "according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you."
ReplyDeleteChristians never tithe because it is an OT "law." we tithe as an act of faith as demonstrated by Abraham (the father or our faith) and Jacob; both of who long predate the Mosaic Law. just because something was reveal to us in the OT does not mean it's not relevant to us. in the LAW we understand how God feels about our faith as demonstrated in the tithe; God wasn't heartbroken over Israel not tithing because they were breaking a 'law', He was hart broken because it demonstrated that they did not trust or reverence Him.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you, but just to clarify: tithing is not somehow different than any other part of the law of God, because Abraham in fact kept all of God's laws: "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Genesis 26:5).
DeleteWhat you have said is true of anything that God has ever asked: it's not the physical act that He truly wants, but obedience and a contrite heart. You can lack either one of those while excelling at the other and not please God - that is, God is not happy with obedience without contrition (like the Pharisees), nor is He happy with contrition without obedience (like many professing Christians today). In short, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" - He commanded sacrifices and they were indeed required, but they were not the point in themselves.
What about the scripture that say you shall not appear before me empty handed.
ReplyDelete