MUZZLE That OX!!

People do treat money in a special way. Maybe this is the reason Jesus spent prodigious effort trying to wean those that would be his students from material concerns. Those of us familiar with the New Testament have memorized such verses as "... you can't serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24b) and:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust corrupts, and where thieves break in and steal (Matthew 6:19).

The above verses demonstrate that Jesus did everything possible to devalue material things. He even went so far as to instruct his followers to loan possessions upon request, making no effort to retrieve them.

Give to everyone that asks you; and of him that takes away your goods ask them not again (Luke 6:30).

Even though Jesus spent considerable teaching effort on this subject, humanity in all eras have found practicing Jesus' precepts on the subject difficult in the extreme. The reader should notice that Jesus taught these precepts to religious people. These listeners would later be referred to as "pious men from every nation under Heaven" (Acts 2:5). His audience didn't include "Gentile sinners" viz, people who cared nothing for God or their fellow man but very religious, God-fearing Jews. By way of emphasizing the religious context of Jesus' teaching, consider the envoy (apostle) Paul's admonition to Timothy concerning this same subject. "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10a). This assertion was made within a Christian context about certain teachers that had just been described as thinking that "... piety is [a means of] financial profit." (1 Timothy 6:5b, emphasis mine).

No one can deny that untold billions of dollars have poured into church coffers historically within a loose definition of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is reputed to be the wealthiest private institution on earth. Within the framework of Protestant denominationalism, billions of dollars are raised annually for a variety of activities, subsequently certain tele-evangelists personally oversee the distributions of millions annually.

Compensation for this "ministry" is diverse. Most contract the services of "clergymen". This is done whether admitting to the existence of a Christian clergy or not. In other words, the clergy exists everywhere in PRACTICE¹ if not in theology. Corporate churches pay for clergy-type activities based upon the value received within the framework of their own orthodoxy. Almost universally, the "pulpit preacher" -- designated variously as preacher, evangelist, pastor, rector, etc. -- receives the greatest stipend. This is especially true of fundamentalist autonomous churches. His or her fee is normally based upon education, experience and public speaking expertise. Rarely within the confines of Protestant denominationalism will you find a member of the "clergy" receiving compensation based on NEED. For example, a young or inexperienced preacher with a wife and four children will not be able to procure a salary comparable with a single man with the aforementioned experience and skill. The tyro will be forced to work with a small group or as an underling to a more experienced man -- being compensated accordingly. In these instances, the salary may be insufficient to support his family whereas the single, experienced person may be over indemnified as to needs. Since church membership determines available salary resources, it is easy to see that this support system differs little from the business world of capitalist America.

There are some denominations that are built autonomously on the efforts of the "evangelist." This minister receives the "tithe." Rent, utilities and other incidentals to the ministry are paid by "free-will offerings" over and beyond the tithe contribution. This method is uniquely capitalistic and makes the "evangelist" a true commissioned promoter. The larger the group, the greater the remuneration as these are only limited by their efforts and ability. Most of us remember the PTL CLUB. This "club" was built upon the efforts of Jimmy and Tammy Baker and grew into a multi-million dollar annual business supporting an opulent life style. Those familiar with southern California know of "Reverend" Ike. Ike unashamedly preaches to his flock and followers to send him their money. The success of this direct approach is underscored since Ike is considered one of the wealthiest men in the Los Angeles area.

People of all religious stripe who recognize that "... godliness is a means of gain" could well relate to a "revelation" received by the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. Smith, who abhorred the toil of farming, conveniently received the following "revelation" while plowing a field in the hot sun. After the "vision," he informed his recalcitrant wife Emma of God's desire that he quit the farm and earn his living by the "gospel" by quoting the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord, magnify thine office, and after thou has sowed thy fields and secured them, go speedily unto the church which is in Colesville, Fayette and Manchester, and they shall support thee; and I will bless them both spiritually and temporally; but if they receive thee not, I will send them a cursing instead of a blessing... And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling ² (emphasis mine).

As the reader beholds these bewildering facts he may shake his head in wonder. Are these money gathering activities actually Biblical? Is it true that by giving to the church or to some religious sponsored "club," the Christian is giving to God? Does the "tithe" have any parallel within the confines of the New Testament church (Greek, ekklesia, a called out assembly or community)?³ Is it true that the Christian "laity" is under obligation to support the "clergy?" Does the teaching of Paul to "muzzle not the ox that is treading ..." really have a parallel to the support received by the modern "preacher", "evangelist", "pastor", or "teacher"? Does the injunction of Paul to "lay by in store" on the first day of the week equate to the weekly contributions collected by the churches today? These subjects and more will be dealt with in this short work.

Origin and Nature

I suppose a definition of tithe is in order. The Hebrew word is "ma'aser (a tenth part)"⁴ Strong's has the Greek as, "APODEKATOO, from apo and dekatoo; to tithe (as a debtor or creditor): -- (give, pay, take)."⁵ Vine has the Greek as "2. APODEKATOO (apodekatow), denotes to (a) to tithe (apo, from, dekatos, tenth)." ⁶

The definitive part worthy of emphasis is that the tithe was considered a DEBT. Just as paying "dues" are necessary to maintain membership in the civic or social club, so the paying of tithes was DEMANDED of God's people to maintain good standing in the Old Testament kingdom. It was not a suggestion or simply a good thing to do. Those that failed to tithe were called thieves by God and elicited His disfavor. Thus the denunciation below merits quoting in its entirety as it is universally employed to motivate modern recalcitrant church members to "ante up."

Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me. But you will say, Wherein have we robbed you? In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse: for you have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring you all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and prove me now herewith, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it (Malachi 3:8-10, emphasis mine).

If you have been a member of a Christian denomination, you have most likely been assaulted with the above text. Having been a paid "preacher" in the past, I have used this text liberally myself. for those that believe in a tithe system -- either in theology or in PRACTICE the language is easy to understand. I think you would agree that most would rather reap the blessing of material prosperity rather than fall under the curse. The question that will be taken up by this thesis is whether this system has any application to the New Testament ekklesia established by Jesus.

That the tithe was the "tenth part" can be seen by scriptures that use the two interchangeably. for example, speaking of the animals that fell under the tithe system, the Israelites were instructed thus:

The entire Tithe of the herd and flock -- every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod -- will be holy to the Lord (Leviticus 27:32; NIV, emphasis mine).

The origin of the tithe is rather obscure, however. It seems to appear out of nowhere in Biblical history and is first occasioned definitively in Genesis 14. Abraham and his armed men had just rescued Lot. On his return, Abraham met a man bearing the title of Melchizedek, who is described propitiously as "... king of Salem ... priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18). This man -- or at least his reputation -- was known to Abraham for the prophet felt obligated to "tithe" him. "... Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" (Genesis 14:20, NIV).

At least two important precepts can be garnered from this text and the Hebrew writer's commentary later. The first is that tithing was practiced before it was mentioned in the above text. It is incredible to believe that Abram came up with the idea giving up a tenth part of the spoils on the spur of the moment. The text also shows that the practice of tithing was connected with the religious aspects of priesthood. History tells us that priests in every society were supported from the offerings of the laity. This Genesis record reminds us of the ancient nature of the practice.

The second important aspect of the tithe can be seen in the commentary by the Hebrew writer viz., the tithe was the priest's "due."

For this "Melchisedek, king of Saleim, high priest of the Highest God," the one who met Abraham when he was returning from the defeat of the kings, and he praised him. To him also Abraham" apportioned "a tenth from all his things." Indeed, his name is primarily translated "King of Right." It is also means, "King of Saleim," that is, King of Peace. He was fatherless, motherless, and without lineage -- having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life -- but similar to God's son he continues as high priest perpetually. Carefully consider how great this one was to whom Abraham the Patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils. Indeed, descendants of Levi who partake in the priesthood have a precept to take a tenth from their brethren the people of Israel although Abraham is their common ancestor (Hebrews 7:1-5, emphasis mine).

In Israel, the tithe was incorporated as God's portion, His "due." It is only their priestly connection with "God things" that the Levites received the tenth part. This warrants emphasis and further development because of the sacerdotal (priestly) systems extant today in all twentieth century churches, whether in theology or in practice.

The Tithe In Judaism

... if God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that you give me I will surely give the tenth unto you (Genesis 28:20-22, emphasis mine).

Though we have no further mention of the tithe within the confines of Jacob's life, we can assume that he fostered this concept in his posterity.

After delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery, God was quick to introduce the tithe into the Mosaic law (Torah). The tenth part became a mainstay of the Jewish sacrificial system. When approaching God through the anointed priests the Israelites were required to tithe. Whether the offering was a burnt offering, peace offering, trespass offering, free-will offering, etc., it was accompanied by a tenth part -- usually flour or some other edible substance.

It needs to be reiterated here that these tithe offerings were the LORD's portion. They were given to God by the laity of Israel NOT to the priests. God was very specific about this.

A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, Belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. The entire tithe of the herd and flock -- every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod -- will be holy to the Lord (Leviticus 27:30,32 NIV, emphasis mine).

Knowledge that tithes were given to the Lord and not to the priest is very significant. Chiefly, if the giver understood that his tithing was to God and not man, it relieved him of the responsibility of determining the priest's worthiness to share in these "dues".

Many rituals were incorporated to remind the laity that they were not giving to priests but to God. This is the reason priestly portions of the peace offering were "waved" and "heaved." They were thus handled publicly to show the laymen that the priest's portion was first given to God and then received back from God. This demonstrated that God was both the supporter of the priests and the sponsor of the banquet. This was important because among pagan religions, the PEOPLE staged feasts for their gods. Not so with Yahweh. He insisted they understood that He was the source of all good things.

Another way that God reminded the people that tithes came from Him and belonged to Him was by requiring the priest to give a tenth part of the tithe received.

Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD's offering' (Numbers 18:26, NIV, emphasis mine).

Second, it also underscores the reason why the tithe was considered a DEBT. Tithes Originated with God. They were simply the tenth part of the Whole of God's gifts to Israel. Since all wealth came from the Almighty, it was considered a loan to the Israelite. Loans are to be repaid but God only required a tenth (similar to interest only payments) to be requited -- thus the debt. From this perspective we can see that He was being generous by not requiring more than a tenth part. This also explains the scathing denunciation by God in Malachi 3 -- accusing Israel of robbing Him by not paying their debt viz, "... in tithes and offerings." Nobody -- including God -- likes a deadbeat.

Once God received His "due", He had every right to give it to whom he chose. In Israel's case, he chose to give it to the Levites who were representative of the FIRSTBORN of Israel and MEDIATORS. Instead of taking the firstborn children from each tribe individually, God made the tribe of Levi representative of them.

Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the Lord (Numbers 3:45, NIV).

The tithe, then, was given to the tribe of Levi by God Himself. This tenth part of all produce was given to them for two reasons. First and foremost, it was because of their capacity as mediators between God and Israel. The sacrificial ministry was the foundation of the Israelite theocracy. Israel was a God chosen, God delivered, God blessed, and God ruled nation. Since the nation was Theo-centric, rituals of mediation, appeasement and fellowship were paramount. Second, the Levites were to receive no land (with limited exceptions) within the confines of Palestine. The tithe was going to be their portion and gift from God. This precept is explained within the following scriptures:

Then the Lord said to Aaron: You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel. Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform. It shall be a statute forever, throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance ... For the tithes I have given to the Levites as an inheritance: therefore I have said to them, among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance(Numbers 18:20ff, emphasis mine).

Why this need to detail the who, what, and why of the tithe and priesthood? This is necessitated because of the wide-spread collection of tithes within the framework of modern churches. In order to justify the continued collecting of tithes there must be a proper parallel found in the New Testament ekklesia since the doctrine is of Old Testament origin and definition. But does a proper foundation exist?

Tithes in the New Testament

The scriptures found in Hebrews are very instructional when it comes to this subject. First, the collection of tithes was God's precept (Hebrews 7:5). Second, the tithe was for the Levites (Hebrews 7:5). Third, and most important for this discussion, tithing was an integral part of an abolished priesthood. This obsolete priesthood was replaced by the Anointed Jesus and an entirely different priestly order -- that of Melchizedek -- replaced it. Follow this with me.

Carefully consider how great this one was to whom Abraham the Patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils. Indeed, descendants of Levi who partake in the priesthood have a precept to take a tenth from their brethren the people of Israel although Abraham is their common ancestor. But the one who derives no lineage from Levi took a tenth from Abraham and he praised the one who had the promises. Now without contradiction, the lesser receives praise from the greater. In this instance indeed, dying people receive tenths from their brethren, but there one received a tenth who lives, as it has been testified. Figuratively speaking, Levi, the one who receives tenths, paid a tenth through Abraham. For he still existed in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchisedek met with him.

Therefore, if completion exists in the Levitical priesthood -- for under it the people received a code -- why the need to raise up another priest according to the order of Melchisedek and not according to Aaron? For changing the priesthood makes it necessary to change the code also... It is common knowledge that our Lord sprang from Judah. Concerning this tribe, Moses said nothing pertaining to priesthood (Hebrews 7:4-12, 14, emphasis mine).

The above quote should be enough to convince us that tithing was part of an Old Testament abolished precept. If its use was to be continued within the framework of the Anointed's priesthood it would have been necessary to establish it, define its boundaries and purpose and designate the recipients. Yet the New Testament is as silent as the grave and for good reason.

Let's examine the Hebrew writer's argument more closely. In verse Hebrews 7:18, he continues his argument.

Laying aside the preceding precept is needed because of its weak and unprofitable nature (emphasis mine).

What precept is being specifically referenced in this verse? It could only be one -- the precept that's mentioned in verse 5 -- the precept that instructs the Levites to collect tithes from their Jewish brethren.

It is this precept that was laid aside by the coronation of Jesus to the order of Melchizedek's priesthood. A new order required a new priesthood and voided the Levite's right to collect tithes since the entire sacrificial system and priesthood was being abolished. A new mediator was enthroned and unlike the "imperfect" Levitical priest, this new mediator sits at the "... right side of the majesty in high places" (Hebrews 1:3c). With the cancellation of the Old Testament priesthood came the annulment of the Old Testament tithe. The Hebrew writer's argument can be summed up as follows:

• Levitical priests received tithes from their fellow Israelites by precept;
• However, Abraham -- the father of the Levites -- had previously paid tithes to Melchizedek.
• Therefore, Melchizedek's priestly order which superseded Abraham and Levi was superior because:
  • The Levites paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham;
  • Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and:
    • Tithes flow from the lesser (Abraham) to the greater (Melchizedek);
    • Blessings flow from the greater (Melchizedek) to the lesser (Abraham).

It is pointless for proponents of the tithe to assert that the Jews paid tithes so Christians are to pay them. comparative arguments must be true parallels to be valid. In order to revive the tithe system, it would be necessary to resurrect a comparable priesthood viz, a separate priesthood of believers. It must be remembered that the Levitical priesthood existed in a mediatorial capacity between God and the Israelite laity.

Christian historians will note that an elitist, separate priesthood Did occur. However, this group arose in apostate "Christianity" and not from any teaching of Jesus or his envoys. In direct opposition to Jesus' injunction to "Call no man on earth your father" (Matthew 23) and to accept no titles and positions within his ekklesia (Matthew 20:25-28 and Matthew 23:9) -- a separate "clergy" arose.⁷

The attitude nurtured by men such as Diotrophes (2 John 9-10) coupled with the age old belief that "... piety is a means of profit" within the confines of the New Testament ekklesia eventually led to the development of a separate priesthood in "Christianity" similar to the Old Testament priesthood! Clothing and rituals similar to Old Testament Judaism such as priestly garments, holy water, incense burning, and altars were adopted. The installation of this priesthood brought with it the sacraments, viz, duties that required the mediation capacity of these priests. It needs to be reiterated and emphasized that this practice was a result of apostasy and cannot be attributed to any teaching found in the New Testament!

As mentioned before, if the Christian rejects this man-made priesthood, he must by necessary inference reject the tithe also. Since the tithe was collected by the priests as their inheritance, the logician must come forth with a New Testament counterpart or give up the practice.

Yet it is plain that there is no authority for the tithe or a separate priesthood in the new Testament ekklesia! Though the roman Catholic church was instrumental in solidifying and defining this "priesthood", Vatican authorities are quick to admit that their system did not exist in "primitive Christianity" (description theirs) but that they had the right to change the rules through what they call "oral tradition." They claim the authority of "apostolic succession" for the evolution from the so-called "primitive church" into the form we observe today. It was in answer to Martin Luther's challenge that their practices contradicted the New Testament that motivated them to verbalize their theology. Hence, their claims that oral tradition has equal authority with the scripture at the Council of Trent.⁸ If you are skeptical of my historical facts, the following quote by the Catholic apologist Brantl should make you a believer:

Catholic theologians maintain that as a source of truth, tradition is superior to Scripture. Scripture is, after all, incomplete; it not only requires interpretation, but it required tradition in order that it might be recognized and established. Further, Scripture is not a textbook; in a sense, it is a dead word which must be brought to life in the living voice of tradition⁹ (emphasis mine).

The Catholic system -- as well as many that have followed their lead -- has created a need for mediators other than Jesus. And yet Paul says plainly,

For God is one, and there is one mediator between God and human beings: the human being Anointed Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, emphasis mine).

You simply cannot have it both ways. If Jesus is the only mediator then that eliminates any other form of mediation. It also means that Jesus is the only one deserving of the tithe!!!

Comparatively speaking, there can be no doubt that Jesus -- the New Testament High Priest -- has a right to receive tithes if he so chooses. However, from whom would Jesus collect the tithes? The High Priest in Israel collected no tithes from other Levites, even those who did not minister directly about the altar. The fact that Jesus is the "High Priest of our confession" (Hebrews 3:1) implies that his students are also priests. In fact, Christians are referred to as "royal priests" (1 Pet. 2:9) and would thus be excluded from paying tithes.

So, from whom would Jesus collect tithes? On whom would this DEBT descend? There exists no laity from which to collect tithes in the ekklesia of Jesus. All are "clergy".

Thus the Old Testament model of priesthood and tithes offers no help within the confines of the New Testament ekklesia. Unless the proponents of the tithe would suggest collecting tithes from unbelievers, they can find no solace in the scriptures for their practice. Some religions do feel that outsiders are fair game but even these aim their tithing efforts principally at their members.

Stating the argument another way, even if it could be argued that the "royal priesthood" should also pay tithes, who would collect them? If Christians are all priests, to whom should they pay tithes? To themselves? If not, why not? The reality is that modern church corporations with their professional company of "elders", "preachers", "pastors", "ministers", "evangelists" and "fill in the blank" have usurped the priesthood of all believers. These corporations -- with their network of real estate and other business activities -- are completely foreign to New Testament teaching and practice. They are in no way justifiable within the framework of Biblical Christianity. This ecclesiastical system simply did not exist for more than two hundred years after Jesus built his ekklesia.

It is no wonder, then, that "corporate Churchianity" has adopted a system of taxation unknown to New Testament times and teaching. The tithe system of the Old Testament offers the apostate "Christian" corporation an authoritative background in which to preach the dire consequences of "robbing God"! It is just another example of twisting the scriptures for the benefit of "revenue enhancement."

There is no command or example for the saints to tithe, Period!!! This is my confident assertion. I welcome the challenge from anyone that can point to a valid parallel between the Old Testament tithe and the ekklesia of God.

At this point many readers might be saying to themselves, so what? So what if the term "tithe" is really not valid? You can call it what you want but aren't Christians still commanded to give? Eliminating the tithe would not eliminate the free-will offering, would it?

Eliminating the tithe would not eliminate the free-will offering to be sure. However, as the reader must know, there is a vast difference between doing something voluntarily and being under debt to accomplish it. If there is no tithe today, then there is no command to "give." It is as simple as that.

If free-will offerings are a matter of command or obligation, then how can they be defined as free-will? This is a valid question. Remember, the tithe was always a matter of debt as has been proven. However, even those denominations that reject the tithe as an Old Testament precept still collect free-will offerings as though they were tithes, i.e., debts. This is the rub.

The denomination that I was recently attached offers a good example of this attitude. In one particular "body" meeting, the "laity"¹⁰ was informed that they were all under obligation to pay off an existing mortgage. This obligation (so the argument went) was binding on all those within the confines of the corporate church umbrella even though many were not present when the debt was incurred. Furthermore -- opined the speaker -- many in the congregation were not "giving as they had been prospered." These people, he continued, were obviously dilatory in completing their obligation to the corporation (my word not his). Because of this "incorporate behavior," it was announced that a certain brother would be contacting those who had not been carrying their load. I can personally attest to the diligence of this "enforcer" since I was one of those interviewed.

This whole scenario brings to the surface actual church Practices. It glaringly demonstrates that the "clergy" believes that free-will offerings (this group believes the tithe was for the Old Testament only) are really not "free-will" at all. It also underscores the corporate structure of this church; a structure that was completely nonexistent in the first and second century ekklesia.

It also points out the common practice of monitoring the individual's contribution.¹¹ I've often heard a fellow "evangelist" and friend comment that "this member" or "that member" was a "good giver." Of course, under the corporate system, "intolerable" members that are "good givers" are universally "tolerated."

This is the indisputable reality of current church practice. Within corporate churchianity, the clergy believes they have every right to know what a person gives. The following admonition of Jesus concerning free-will offerings goes unheeded.

Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them ... let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing (Matthew 6:13, KJV, emphasis mine).

We know that Jesus is referring to free-will offerings, i.e., "deeds of righteousness" (AV) because the tithe was never referred to as such. The monitoring of a member's "free-will" gifts in opposition to Jesus' teaching further illustrates that these contributions are indeed treated as tithes or debts -- something that is obligatory on those that would be considered a member of the corporation.

And yet Jesus warned those who give "alms" to do it privately for good reason. The constant tendency of humanity is to receive the praises of men. None of us are immune.

The Purpose Exposed

For if the zeal first exists, the gift is well received according to what a person has and not according to what he has not. It is not received so that others will be at rest while you are pressed but rather it flows from the concept of equality. At the present season, your abundance should make up for what they lack, so that on other occasions their abundance would supply your lack -- so that there would be equality. just as it was written, 'The one who had gathered much did not have too much and the one who had gathered little did not have too little' (emphasis mine).

In a few short verses, Paul sums up the spirit of New Testament giving. It is for the purpose that the family of God may share EQUALLY in material wealth. You see reader, there was no clergy class to support. There was no corporation to run and maintain. There were only Christians that were eager to help other Christians that were in need.

The amazing thing is that 2 Corinthians 8 is used to motivate modern Christians to support the corporation. "Giving to the church", quote they, "is giving to the Lord."

What is this mysterious "church" that the Christian is urged to maintain? Well, it comes in many guises and varieties but they all have one thing in common. The church equals the clergy and "clergy things" -- including church buildings and other corporate paraphernalia. 95% of collected funds are used to maintain the clergy (including building maintenance and supplies) in the denomination I was affiliated. This ratio is the RULE and not the exception. Yet the laity is constantly told that this money is used to advance the kingdom! The kingdom of whom? Before you think that I am being too cynical lets press on.

To begin with, the offering referenced by Paul in the above text was a special contribution; designated for a special purpose. It was an "alms-type" free-will offering. It was being collected for the impoverished Christians in Jerusalem. This is easily determined by comparing this text with Acts 24:17, Romans 15:26, and 1 Corinthians 16:1-3. In the introductory verses, Paul is motivating these brethren to follow through with their previous personal commitment to help the Jerusalem needy (2 Corinthians 8:10). He was prodding them by describing the charitable character of the Macedonian Christians who had donated to the same cause.

Paul had first introduced in writing this special collection by reminding the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 16:1ff to put this money aside on the first day of the week so it would not be necessary for those that were to bear the gift to Jerusalem to gather it when they passed through Corinth. Even with this obvious knowledge, the modern clergyman has made much mileage by lifting these verses from their context and intent and using them as motivation for their own corporate "revenue enhancement" (remember Gallager's "from your 'hance' to their 'hance'").

Notice Paul's actual statement.

Now concerning that collection for the holy ones: as I arranged it for the assemblies in Galatia, I am doing for you. On the first day of the week, each of you should put by itself what he has treasured up -- whatever he might be prospered -- so collections will not be necessary when I come. When I happen by, I will send persons who meet your approval with letters of introduction to bear your gift to Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-3, emphasis mine).

It requires little attention to context to understand that this is a special contribution! This is not a command by Paul to give every first day of the week in perpetuity in support of the local corporation and clergy. As a matter of fact, there is no command or example anywhere of the New Testament ekklesia demonstrating a regular weekly collection even though this is the universal practice in corporate Churchianity today.

Yet the modern clergy "bald-facedly" quote the special collection under discussion to justify "passing the plate." It should also be noted that the modern "plate passing" activity is not "for the holy ones" noted in the above quote, but for the "holy clergy", the corporation and all the trappings that accompany it. It is a case of "money-grubbing" at worst and ignorance at best.

The instruction of Paul in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 also establishes that this was a free-will donation. The Corinthians were under no Edict to make this effort. After telling them plainly in 2 Corinthians 8:8, that he was NOT speaking "by command" (KJV), Paul goes on to softly cajole these brethren by saying, "For if the zeal first exists ..." (8:12, emphasis mine). Paul did urge them to fulfill their previous commitment by reminding them that Jesus had made himself poor on their behalf, even appealing to their human greed by saying that they would be recompensed according to how they shared (2 Corinthians 9:6).

Today, these same scriptures are used to place Christians under obligation or DEBT -- even those who acknowledge that tithing is an Old Testament precept. Twentieth century clergymen -- like the Mormon prophet Smith -- say or imply that if there is no "zeal" or "eagerness" then we are going to "hell in a hand basket." Am I right or have you forgotten?

It is the common practice -- after pointing out the fact that the Macedonians gave out of their poverty -- to combine 1 Corinthians 16:1's "first day of the week", together with 2 Corinthians 9:7's "... as he has purposed in his heart, so let him give", while throwing in Malachi 3:8's "... will a man rob God?" for the coup de grace. The use of the tithe or "tenth part" offers both tithe proponents and non-proponents alike with a minimum amount of 10%. A very handy "revenue enhancement" device, the tithe, wouldn't you agree?

One of the favorite verses used by an ex-colleague of mine is Matthew 5:20.

For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

He would apply it thus. The Jews gave ten percent. Unless our giving exceeds their giving we won't go to heaven. Of course, he never omitted the use of the above mentioned "combination" either. He was very effective in raising the corporate weekly contributions so who could be too critical of his Biblical "exegesis"?

In addition to the fear of "hell"¹² engendered among the laity, the real tragedy caused by the misuse and misapplication of "giving" scriptures is that equality is not approached in the average church. You can enter any denomination in America and find the full range of economic castes as you find in the world of unbelievers, to say nothing of the poor non members. Thus the true purpose of New Testament giving viz, to promote equality among saints goes unheeded. Unfortunately, the corporate churches are a reflection of the society at large; a microcosm of the "haves" and "have nots" instead of a reflection of Jesus' ekklesia.

Paul's teaching concerning equality was consistent with the attitude of the ekklesia from its inception. Several other comments to this commonality of believers are mentioned. The first converts to Jesus' ekklesia were described as "... liquidating their possessions and goods and dividing to any who had need." (Acts 2:45). This liberality was an outgrowth of their commitment to the principle of equality. This is further explained in Acts 4:32.

The multitude that trusted were united in heart and lives. No one claimed his possessions as his own. On the contrary, all things were common to them. (emphasis mine).

The distribution that transpired was empowered by people who recognized the true principles of New Testament giving. They did not treat their possessions as their own but made them available to those that lacked. Isn't this what Paul repeated in 2 Corinthians 8:12ff, i.e., that the Corinthians'

... abundance should make up for what they lack, so that also in other times their abundance would supply your lack -- so that there would be equality. just as it was written, 'The one who had gathered much did not have too much and the one who had gathered little did not have too little.'

If not, why not? This mind-set had been put into action at Jerusalem. It was easy for those who held to the principles of equality to put them into practice. Luke describes further what ensued.

The multitude that trusted were united in heart and lives. No one claimed his possessions as his own. On the contrary, all things were common to them. And with great power the envoys gave testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great favor rested on them all. There were no poor among them because many landowners and homeowners were liquidating their property -- placing the proceeds at the envoys' feet. These assets were divided to each as the need arose (Acts 4:32-35, emphasis mine).

There were no poor among them because they believed and practiced the concept of equality that was later spelled out by Paul in 2 Corinthians. Just imagine what would happen today if instead of Christians supporting the corporation and the clergy they actually practiced the equality principle. Just think of the impact on the community!

Paul expresses this same purpose to the Ephesian brethren by instructing all able bodied people to work with their hands. Why Paul? "... that he may have something to share with those who need" (Ephesians 4:28b). Modern practice substitutes the clergy for "those in need." Therefore, in practice, we have thousands of able bodied clergymen nursing at the corporate teat instead of working with their own hands and sharing with those in need.

In describing gifts received by God through the Anointed Jesus, Paul echoes the precept of using possessions by stating succinctly,

Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality (Romans 12:13).

It needs to be interjected here the paradox of modern practices in giving. Even though the tithe was considered a debt and commandment, i.e. a loan to be repaid, it required no real stewardship. It is relatively easy to count out a tenth part, give it to God, and forget how it was used. The "tither" was not required to consider the worthiness of the cause for which he was tithing. The priests that received payment may have been good or evil. God provided for them through the tithe in both cases.

On the other hand, the "alms-type" free-will offering required thought and sensitivity as to needs. The donator first decided whether to give or not to give. The giver had to decide whether the purpose was worthy of his charity. After the gift was donated there was still some obligation to see that it was used for the purpose intended. The instances of ekklesia giving already quoted yield credence to this view. When Paul told the Corinthian brethren to "lay by in store" on the first day, he was sure to provide methods of carrying this gift to Jerusalem that would assure the Corinthian contributors that their gift was going for the purposes enjoined. He wrote,

Now when I happen by, I will send those persons of whom you approve with letters to bear your gift to Jerusalem (emphasis mine).

In 2 Corinthians, Paul expands on this theme.

Now God be thanked for placing in Titus' heart the same diligence on your behalf .... Now we sent with him the brother whose praise in the good message rings out through all of the assemblies. In addition, he was hand-picked by the assembly to accompany us with this free gift. Together we are serving in our eagerness for the LORD's glory. We are making sure that no one can blame us in the matter of this gift and our service [in delivering it.] For we are mindful to appear honorable in all circumstances, not only in God's eyes but also in the sight of men. Also, we have sent our brother to escort them. He has proven his diligence in many things before. He is even more diligent because of the great love he has for you (2 Corinthians 8:16-21, emphasis mine).

These verses were quoted at length because it demonstrates Paul's concern that the Corinthian ekklesia be assured that their gift was not only appreciated but that it would be taken by trustworthy men to Jerusalem for the purpose that it was intended.

To show that a man's property was his to do with as he saw fit, the incident of Ananias and Saphira should suffice. In the midst of a massive case of generosity, this husband and wife decided to get in on the bandwagon. However, they evidently wanted their contribution to be a source of accolades for themselves rather than for God's glory. Peter comments pointedly about this in Acts 5:3--4.

Hananiah, why has the Enemy filled your heart that you would deceive the holy spirit by retaining part of the proceeds from the sale? Didn't you own it before the sale? Didn't all the proceeds from the sale remain at your disposal? Why have you devised this scheme in your heart? You have lied to God and not to mankind! (emphasis mine).

As before stated, a paradox exists in modern practice. Not only does the twentieth century "preacher" constantly harp about "robbing God", he teaches that it is not the responsibility of the contributor to worry himself with the details of distribution. That once he has "given to god" his blessing is assured. "You don't have to like the preacher" goes the line. "You don't have to agree with the way the money is spent." As you have already noted, this attitude is completely different than Paul's as he assured the Corinthian ekklesia that their contribution was being handled honorably.

The truth is that it IS the responsibility of the "alms-giver" to know how his gift is being used. It is his obligation to KNOW. This is true because it is his right to decide to give or not to give. Each individual priest is a steward of the Lord's bounty and it falls upon him or her alone to decide 1) whether to give at all; 2) whether the purpose of the gift meets his approval; and 3) whether the gift was distributed according to the purpose intended. This is what "free-will" is all about, isn't it????

For example, a Christian would certainly be within his rights in refusing to donate to activities that were immoral. He might be required to decide whether to give to a needy person knowing that the person is spending donations to feed a drug or alcohol habit. But this decision making power is not acknowledged when it comes to corporate giving!!!

The opposite occurs in corporate giving. Not only are contributions collected as debts and obligations by the clergy, it is the clergy that decides how the funds are to be disbursed. As mentioned before, this is a tithe system plain and simple whether called so or not. And yet it falls upon the ekklesia of God to know what they are supporting by their free-will offerings. It was only after the rise of an apostate priesthood and clergy that the individual priest's rights to give or not to give were abrogated.

Reader, the "long and short" of New Testament giving has been exposed. It was to supply the legitimate needs of those in need. There is no teaching, instruction, or even a hint of the concept of "giving to the church." This practice was instigated by apostates and not by Jesus.

Since the corporate church rules today, you will find both extremes of wealth and poverty among Christian family members. it is normal practice for corporate church "officials" -- the supported clergy -- to live economically far above the poorer members. This "class" enjoys all the perks of their fraternity. in addition to the standard benefits of housing, salary, paid vacations, etc., they also attend various seminars and travel to exotic places to "check out the work." All these expenses are paid by the laity.

Even if the existence of this ministerial class is Biblically authorized, their life style could not be supported by the principles of equality and examples that are found in the sacred text. It is my belief that the existence of this class in the twentieth century, i.e., "preacher", "evangelist", "pastors" and "teachers" cannot be supported by the close examination of the scriptures.¹³