n the previous series, I have pointed out how giving was done in the Old Testament (OT) i.e. before the arrival of Christ. Everything that was practised or required during the OT was to prepare the way for Christ, who would perfect all things.
|
 advertisement
|
We certainly do have obligation to give under the New Testament except that it is not by 'levy' as it was in the Old Testament. It is 'as purposed' by the individual. Paul wrote the Corinthian Church as follows:
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him�" (ICor 16:2). In his second letter to the same Church, he wrote: "Every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver". Written in the LB as: "Every one must make up his own mind as to how much he should give. Don't force anyone to give more than he really wants to, for cheerful givers are the ones God prizes". (2Cor 9:7)
In the early Church, members who had properties (land and housing) sold them and brought the proceeds in full before the apostles' feet (Act 4:34-37). A member, Ananias brought only part of the proceeds of the sales of his possession, claiming it was full price. His wife was privy to the deception. The Spirit revealed this deception to Peter who told Ananias, "The property was yours to sell or not, as you wished. And after selling it, it was yours to decide how much to give" (Acts 5:4).
This is a perfect summary of what is obtainable about giving under the new system and it came from the mouth of not less a person than Peter, who was with The Master of the New Covenant right from the beginning.
Ananias and Saphira died of deception and hypocrisy and not because they did not give to the Church all the proceeds of the sales of their property. Peter told Ananaias: "The property was yours to sell or not, as you wished. And after selling it, it was yours to decide how much to give." This is the principle of giving under the New Covenant.
Peter's argument is most informative. Ananias according to Peter, in the first instance reserves his right to sell or not to sell the property. He was not under any mandate. And after he sold it, he still reserves the right to bring what much it pleased him. This is the free will, which we have today under the New Covenant.
I heard someone say "Church and mission work will suffer should we leave people to give only what it please them without frightening them with a Scriptural curse if they do not give a certain percentage of their earnings or if we do not trick them with promise to becoming wealthy" I beg to disagree.
Many argue that it is useless teaching people who find it difficult to part with only a tenth of their earnings, something otherwise. I hold a contrary view to this line of thought as well. Preachers should restrain themselves from teaching anything because of some gains, which they hope to derive either to themselves or to the Church, but which could be to the detriment of a true, balanced teaching and blessings of the congregation. The congregation must be taught exactly what is found in the Scripture without any amendments.
In fact, it is my belief that, if we afford the congregation the true, balanced knowledge and the blessings in giving (I am not referring to the type of teachings prevalent on many of our pulpits today please, where people are told to give so as to become wealthy), the congregation will give generously and the Church herself will have a surplus budget and we have examples in the New Testament era of Churches who gave abundantly and joyfully even in their poverty.
The apostle Paul testified to certain Churches in Macedonia in this regard. In a letter to the Corinthian Church, Paul wrote:
"Now I want to tell you, dear brothers and sisters, what God in His kindness has done for the Churches in Macedonia. Though they have been going through much trouble and hard times, their wonderful joy and deep poverty have overflowed in rich generosity. For I can testify that they gave not what they could afford but far more. And they did it of their own free will��� (2Cor. 8:1-5)
Hear the apostle testify of them again to the Roman Church:
"For it has pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints, which are at Jerusalem. It has pleased them verily;------" (Rom.15:6-27).
Under the Law system, both the offerings and tithes were levied and compulsory. It did not have to please them. This is why 'giving' under the New Covenant is more superior to the 'offerings and tithing' of the Old System and equally more rewarding because it comes from a willing heart. The Macedonia Churches are really our good example at giving.
But does tithing not predate the Law?
We may trace the genesis of tithing to the patriarch, Abraham, who gave a tenth of the spoils he had from a certain war to Melchizedek, who was described as the Priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb.7:2, 5). This was 430years before Moses brought the law and institutionalized the ordinance of tithing (Gal.3:17). Why then do we refer to tithing as an Old Testament law?
Everything that Abraham did was perfectly in line with what is obtainable today under the New Covenant. Abraham did it, not as a ceremonial legal form of worship but as it pleased him, as he purposed it in his heart.
Paul wrote in Gal.3:7 "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith i.e. those who trust in Jesus other than their efforts for salvation the same are the children of Abraham" "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom.4:4) (Reason why Abraham is regarded and referred to as 'Father of Faith').
Just as Moses was the courier of the law covenant, so is Abraham the courier of the Covenant of salvation by Grace through Faith, even though it was sealed up for hundreds of years "Until the coming of Christ, the child to whom God's promise was made" (Gal.3:19).
His (Abraham's) payment of a tenth of the spoil from the war of kings was not dictated to him by anyone. It was not a levy. It was what he purposed in his mind in consonance with the New Covenant teaching on 'Giving'. Abraham could have given more or less depending on the dictate of his mind or as his spirit directed him. The same applies to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, who vowed to give back to God a tenth of all that God would give him, if God would bring him back to his father's house (Gen.28: 20-22). This was after he ran away from home, having deceived Isaac his father (a plan hacked by his mother Rebecca) and got the blessing meant for his twin brother Esau.
I hear someone say "Could God not have ministered the tenth to Abraham as an indication of what He (God) wants us to adapt?" But God does not have a general or stereotype formula for dealing with His children.
Supposing He (God) ministers to me to give 20% or 30% of my earning, would anyone dispute it? And in any way, God has done away with legalistic pattern of worship in this dispensation. "God is Spirit and they that worship Him must do in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24)
We should also note that Abraham's payment of tithes was a one-time event. We do not have a record that it continued on any periodical basis, unlike after it was instituted under the law well over 430 years later.
I must say however, that if anyone today under Grace (New Covenant) purposes in his mind to imitate Father Abraham to give to God's work, a tenth of his earnings, it will be in order and if a mistake is made in his calculation, there will be no curse of God on him as it would have been if a mistake was made under the law system.
But let such a person not teach what he does as the standard or as if it is what is required of every Christian because that will amount to legalistic rule for worship and will be inconsistent with the new system. Also he has no justification to restrict anyone's blessings to that of a tenth giver because there will be those who will have faith to give more than a tenth and receive in return a blessing, which is proportionate and no preacher has the right to limit the blessings of those.
Let me expand the above that it is my belief that it is within the constitutional right of any group, fellowship, Church or denomination if they come to a consensus of what percentage of their earnings, which each member should pay weekly or monthly. For instance, they may agree that each member should give 10% or 20% etc of his/her earnings. It will be in order, I believe. We have the liberty but it will be unscriptural to set our practice as a yardstick for others or insist that others must do the same.
Also no preacher should portray tithes as if it is what is required of us under the New System.
If God does no longer stipulate how much we should give Him but gives us a free will to decide what we want to, which in turn will determine our reward, then no preacher, however famous he may be, has any right to decide the blessings of the members of the congregation. Every Christian must be the architect of his own fortune. Whatever percentage of any one's earning, which he gives to God cheerfully will attract a commensurate reward, with no curse unlike under the law system where if a mistake was made in arriving at a tenth, he had no reward. And not only that, he brought a curse of God on himself.
Some people agree that tithing is old method of worship but say that under the New Testament; no one should give less than 10%. This is also not found in the Bible. Every one under this dispensation must make up his/her mind as to what to give.
My book, "Worshipping God With Our Substance. Is Tithing Still Relevant" gives detailed study of this subject.
