Is tithing required of Christians?

I'm an Ex-Christian athiest.

 

........you can officiate one wedding ceremony or you can make weddings, funerals, baptisms, house blessings, etc. your business. You can even start your own ministry. The Universal Life Church is interfaith and non-denominational........

Why are you allowed to officiate only one wedding? [I skimmed the site, Brother
Galethog, the answer must be on a link.]

 

True enough. However there are also several passages in Leviticus and Exodus that refer to offering the "firstfruits" of crops and even cattle to the Lord during the major festivals of the year. Some might argue apples and oranges here, but I think there's a link between firstfruits and worship.

As you mentioned, most of us aren't farmers or cattlemen. Most of us trade our time and services for money. One could apply the principle of "every tenth" and give at the end of the pay period or in the middle, whatever. But taking 10% off the top before anything else gets spent, is, IMHO, a way of confirming in a person's heart what and Who comes first, just as the Hebrews were instructed to do for their festivals.

It's not about the money, it's about taking a part of that sacred offering and trying to exchange it for something that fits our tastes better. It's a penalty for being hesitant to give God our very best, IMO.

This is probably a largely semantical argument, but for fun I'll play along. I think the difference between the modern dynamic of working for money and ancient farming is that back then, what you produced was also your income. Cattle especially was considered part of a man's wealth, and was often used as a form of currency in trading, marriage arrangements and soforth. Now, in today's economy the equivalent would obviously be money. That's not to say that tithing couldn't include crops if you're a farmer, or cattle if you're a rancher, or any other product or service if that was your trade.

The whole point of tithing is to honor God and support the church, and there are many ways to do both. I think tithing in the age of Grace, is a guideline, not a law. But why not follow the guideline? Especially when God makes an offer like the one found in Malachi 3:10...

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

 

Are you making the argument that the OT rules apply as far as tithing? If that is the case, shouldn't all the laws established still apply to Christians?

I'm seriously curious about this. I hear discussion about how Jesus brought the New Covenant and the New Law and it supercedes OT law, yet I see the OT law being used to justify other practices.

 

The way I understand it, in OT times the Mosaic Law outlined what had to be done to keep or earn back God's favor. The 10 Commandments (as far as I know) have always been, and will always be Commandments.

However, because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, the purpose of the Mosaic Law was fulfilled. Now, instead of sacrificing specific items for various transgressions against God, believers have the option to receive His forgiveness through repentance and submission and deference to Jesus.

But just because the 'crime and punishment' aspect of obedience to the Mosaic Law has been rendered obsolete for anyone who devotes the remainder of his life to following Christ, the standard or spirit of the Law remains. Another way to put it might be, the Law is still the Law, but the punishment for breaking the Law has already been carried out, for everyone. That doesn't mean the spirit (if not the letter) of the Law should be ignored, because the law itself was given for more than one reason. Not only was it supposed to function as a way for believers to receive forgiveness, it was also a way for them to pursue righteousness in the eyes of God. Not that they, nor anyone else, could ever truly attain righteousness on his own, but it's still at least spiritually beneficial to pursue it. An example might be if you knew you would be caught, but not punished, for driving drunk, does that mean it's okay to drive drunk?

Anyway, that's how I understand it as of right now. I'm not 100% confident in that understanding, and I'm still learning how this works. I hope that was somewhat helpful to you.

 

It could have been explained better. What it is saying is that if want to officate one wedding, say a friend's wedding, you could get ordained and then you could legally officiate the wedding. But you could officiate any number of weddings. It is perfectly legal. ULC has been around for a while, (about 60 years I think), and they have fought and won numerous lawsuits against them.

 

Who decides which part of the Mosaic Law has to be obeyed and which can be ignored?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

What this is saying is that if a man rapes your virgin daughter, he is required to pay you money and then marry her. And he is not allowed to divorce her later. I think I can safely say that this part of the Law is ignored today.

 

tithing is not required in the NT. However, tithing preceded the law (Cain and Able and Abraham all tithed.) and it is a good thing to do today. In fact, it is assumed that you do tithe in the NT.

Tithing is a demonstration of your trust (or faith) in God and not in $.

Finally, tithing is good because of the sowing and reaping aspect of it.

 

Is it? I don't know how rape is handled in Orthodox Jewish societies.

I think for believers in the age of Grace, the spirit of that law (and the others) still apply -- "Raping virgins is bad, mmmkay?" But going by Jesus' intervention at the stoning of the adulteress, it seems to me like the enforcement/judgment aspect has been taken out of man's hands by God Himself. That's not to say that people who break the laws won't still be held accountable. It just won't be by the church, it'll be by God.

 

"""Raping virgins is bad, mmmkay?""" True, but the spirit of the law in this case is; My daughter is my property and you broke her. I can't sell her now, so you broke her, you bought her. Women were considered property even in the USA until recently. Before 1977 a man could not be charged with raping his wife.

How is a person held accountable for rape by God? I don't accept Jesus Christ, I go to hell. Rape, murder, any crime or sin, has nothing to do with it.