Shekels,
Dollars and Sense—A Biblical Theology of Financial Stewardship
God Doesn’t Need Our
Money! (But We Need to Give It!)
Title of
the Revised Edition, Copyrighted 2023
Dennis
O. Wretlind, Ph.D.
Preface to the Revised Edition
These pages abbreviate my larger work
entitled Shekels, Dollars & Sense published in 2006 by
Trafford Publishing and is available from Amazon in both hard copy and digital
format. The present book differs in significant areas. First,
the target readers are different. Whereas the original book was
written with professors, pastors, teachers, students, and other
biblically-trained lay persons in mind, this book has the general Christian
public in view. Second, whereas the first edition gives extensive
quotations and footnotes, this edition omits them to enhance readability and to
move the reader to the conclusions without stopping to justify every point. The
practical purpose of the book and its intended readership explains the approach
with this qualification—quotations and footnotes are clearly set forth in the
original volume to which the reader is directed. Third, direct
quotations of Scripture are set apart by quotation marks unless indented and
extended as below. Most quotations are from the New American Standard
Bible, 1995, unless otherwise indicated.
The thesis of this book appears in
the title, “God Doesn’t Need Our Money! (But We Need To Give It!).” God is
completely self-sufficient, in need of nothing, and has no dependence upon anything or
anyone outside of Himself. He created the entire universe out of nothing and owns everything.
To suggest that we can provide something He lacks denies clear biblical
statements to the contrary:
I shall take no young bull out of
your house
Nor male goats out of your folds.
For every best of the forest is
Mine,
The cattle on a thousand hills.
I know every bird of the mountains,
And everything that moves in the
field is Mine.
If I were hungry I would not tell
you,
For the world is Mine, and all it contains.
(Psalm 50:9-12)
God certainly does not need our
money, but why then do we need to give it? The answer to this question lies in
part in our misunderstanding of what biblical giving is all about. It’s not
about the money! Nothing could be clearer as I intend to prove. It’s about
spiritual growth. But, practically speaking, in our minds and emotions it is
about the money every time the offering plate makes its way down the pews or
when the “annual stewardship sermon” is presented. And this practical truth
reveals itself in the unending debate over tithing which is where this volume
must begin as we seek answers to the questions usually left unspoken but
certainly present in our minds, “Why must I give?” and perhaps more
critically, “How much must I give?”
The
initial stimulus for this book stemmed from a not-so-well-known fact: The
New Testament not once mentions tithing as a duty for the Christian! This may sound shocking to many given the
emphasis placed on tithing in many churches. However, ask yourselves the
question, “What New Testament passages have been used in tithing sermons?”
There will be a few, of course, but as will be shown clearly in the following
pages, they are either taken out of context or misinterpreted. Tithing is an
Old Testament teaching for the Old Testament people of God. It speaks often of
tithing, and it is no wonder that almost every tithing sermon finds its primary
support from the Hebrew Scriptures. Who among us cannot remember a sermon from
this well-known text, “Will a man rob God? Yet
you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and
offerings.” (Malachi 3:8)
The
chapters of this book will show that we cannot rob God, but we can rob
ourselves of spiritual maturity. “God Doesn’t Need Our Money” is a
theological truth. “(But We Need To Give It!)” is a spiritual truth. Proofs for these statements involve a
cultural understanding of the ancient world, the differences between the Old
and New Testaments, the theological unity of the Bible and, of course, a
detailed explanation of giving in the New Testament church. The final chapter
points us to some theological and practical ways to apply the biblical
teachings personally and corporately in our churches.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
What's All This Talk About Tithing?
Chapter 2
From Custom to Commandment
Chapter 3
Two Testaments; One Theology
Chapter 4
Financial Stewardship in the Jerusalem Church
Chapter 5
Financial Stewardship in the Expanded Church of the
New Testament
Chapter 6
Theological and Practical Considerations
Chapter 1
What’s All This Talk About
Tithing?
Money! Money! Money! It draws us like a beacon. We
gravitate towards it consciously and subconsciously. It represents physical and
social well-being and purchases the necessities of life. We need it.
Christians know that money, as important as it is,
should not be valued excessively. We also know intuitively that our attitudes
towards money should differ from that of the non-Christian world. Most of us
realize that the Bible says much about money, even if we are uncertain about
two crucial details—why we should give and how
much we should give. Three main interpretations have been
suggested in answer to these emotionally-charged questions about tithing,
popularly defined as 10% of one’s income and has been a focal-point in churches
on a Christian’s stewardship of his or her money.
Tithe? Yes!
In the
Old Testament every working Israelite was required to give a tithe to God in
accordance with the Mosaic Law. The same command applies to us. One practical
appeal for tithing is that it clearly defines how much money God requires us to
give, 10% of our income. Though discussion rages about whether tithing should
be based upon one’s gross or net income, tithing allows us to define in exact,
unambiguous numbers what we must give according to the Bible. It also gives the
local church leadership direction in establishing a yearly budget. In this
view, we must give our 10% because God commands it.
Tithe? Yes, But . . . !
Arguments against tithing as the New Testament
standard for giving include the idea that giving only occurs after the tithe
has been paid. In other words, the tithe represents our debt to
God; what is given beyond the tithe represents our giving. This
becomes a moral argument. Though we are not legally bound
to tithe like the Israelites, we are morally bound to tithe if
our faith has any depth of dedication. How much “extra” we must give beyond the
10% under this view remains undefined.
Tithe? No!
Tithing is not a New Testament principle, has no New
Testament support, and needs to be abandoned. According to this perspective, we
give financially as a privilege under grace, and we give solely because we have
freely received God’s grace and because we love God and our fellow man.
Legalism and grace oppose one another. Tithing promotes legalism; grace
stimulates love. Following this line of reasoning, we give solely out of love
for God and others and the amount of our giving relates to the levels of our
love for God and others.
None of the
above-mentioned points of view leads to a consensus in the pulpit or the pew.
The “tithing proponents” fail to prove that the New Testament commands tithing
as we shall see.
Also, the
practical, pragmatic approach, as helpful as it may be, must not be a
substitute for biblical accuracy. The “tithing-plus advocates” provide no
unquestionable support for the moral obligation theory based on the New
Testament “starting point” of tithing as our debt to God. Finally, the
“anti-tithing backers” must realize that their view collapses at the supposed
conflict between law and grace. Law certainly exists in the New Testament,
“Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to
whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:7), and grace
cannot be opposed to law since it incorporates definite rules, “For the grace
of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny
ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in
the present age” (Titus 2:11-12). The unfortunate result of such disagreements
in the pulpit leads to confusion in the pew. Why and how much we
need to give remain vague at best under these three viewpoints.
A Way Forward
The starting point in our study must
be some clear statements of underlying presuppositions that govern our
evaluation of what the Bible has to say about money. First, we must
seek to understand the Old Testament in light of the customs and practices of
the Ancient Near East that gave rise to the Old Testament tithing texts. Second, we must
recognize the briefness of the Old Testament tithing information, which might seem
surprising to many of us, and our conclusions must be tied to the available
biblical data. Finally, we must approach every doctrine on the
basis of accepted procedures of interpretation and carefully avoid the
temptations to read our preferred interpretations into the
Bible rather than drawing truth out of the Bible.
One of the wonderful truths of Christianity is that
God is in control—even with regards to money and the need for individuals,
churches, and Christian organizations to have the financial “wherewithal” to
operate and advance God’s programs. Money is not the problem. God can supply
and has done so throughout history to advance His causes. The spiritual tragedy
in all of this is that many sincere Christian’s live with a guilt-ridden question,
“Am I pleasing God with what I do with my money?” The following chapters
challenge popular opinions and provide reasonably biblical answers to why we
need to give and how much God expects us to give.
For some of us tithing may have
become a habit stemming from the teachings of the Bible or family or church.
However done the commitment deserves commendation. Many have testified to the
blessings associated with tithing. However, the blessings may have come because
of tithing, spiritual commitment, coincidences,
or other circumstances. Whatever the reasons for these blessings, one issue
cannot be disputed—God blesses spiritual commitment. We begin this
chapter by looking backwards—way back!
The custom of tithing traces back to
3000 B.C. in Egypt as a religious rite. The custom can also be found in ancient
Babylonia, Arabia, Greece, Rome, and even China. It involved both the religious
and political spheres since the ancient world integrated the two aspects of
life. On the political side tithing
became taxation.
The actual beginning of tithing remains
historically obscure which has led some to speculate that it began in the
Garden of Eden using as a basis Genesis 4:7 from the Greek Old Testament,
called the Septuagint. The passage states
that Cain “did not rightly divide” his offering to God with the
suggestion that it was inadvertently omitted from our English versions. Finding
scholars and commentaries that adopt this addition to the text becomes a
“needle in a haystack” pursuit. Another text employed in support comes from
Hebrews 11:4 where the writer affirms that “Abel
offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain,” the conclusion here being that
Cain did not tithe his offering whereas Abel did. However, to equate any of this “evidence”
with a tenth is certainly gratuitous and cannot be considered biblical proof.
The biblical data on tithing is studied
adequately by consolidating all tithe passages into three categories: (1) passages
found in Genesis; (2) those imbedded in the Mosaic Law (Exodus through
Deuteronomy); (3) references that are dated after the enacting of the Mosaic
Law—the rest of the Old Testament and a few references in the New Testament.
This third category effectively illustrates the Mosaic Law passages and
therefore needs no discussion with the exception of Malachi 3:8-10 which has
had profound influence on those who teach tithing as a requirement for the
Christian.
Tithing in
Genesis
In Genesis 14 the four kings of the
Mesopotamian valley conquered the five kings of the Jordan valley. Their cities
were looted and their survivors were taken captive including Lot, the nephew of
Abram. When Abram heard of Lot’s capture he equipped his servants for battle
and pursued the Mesopotamians. He surprised the enemy and recovered Lot and the
spoils. Upon his return Abram was met by Melchizedek, King of Salem, Priest of
God. Genesis 14:20 states about this meeting, “He [Abram] gave him
[Melchizedek] a tenth of all.” This is the first mention of tithing in the
Bible and is stated simply, unadorned and without explanation.
Four conclusions can be stated: (1)
tithing was well-known among the ancient Israelites, (2) it was a
well-established religious custom throughout ancient Palestine, (3) it was an unremarkable
religious act that Abram performed, and (4) the broader biblical significance
of this event is the introduction of the Messianic theme involving Melchizedek,
a topic beyond the scope of this book.
Genesis 28 narrates Jacob’s flight
from Esau who vowed to kill his brother because of Jacob’s birthright
deception. Jacob’s parents decided that it would be good for Jacob to leave the
country, so he journeyed north towards Haran. While sleeping at Bethel, Jacob
saw a vision of angels ascending and descending on a ladder between heaven and
earth. The next morning he made a vow to God, “If God will be with me and will
keep me on this journey that I take, and will give me food to eat and garments
to wear, and I return to my father’s house in safety, then the LORD will be my
God. This stone, which I have set up as a pillar, will be God’s house; and of
all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.” (Genesis 28:20-22)
The first part of Jacob’s vow sets
conditions whereby he would acknowledge the LORD as his God by a formal act of
tithing. This also fits the ancient tithing customs and, again, appears in the
text without explanations.
Two
similarities are evident between these two Genesis passages. Both Abram and
Jacob were aware of the religious custom of tithing, and both were apparently
in the habit of doing so. Nothing in either of these events suggests that God
initiated tithing. Custom ruled.
Tithing in the Mosaic Law
Leviticus 27:30-33 mentions tithing
almost as an afterthought. Tithing makes its initial debut as a legal
requirement in a context of redeeming items that had been consecrated to the
Lord.
30 ‘Thus all the tithe of the land, of the seed of the
land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s;
it is holy to the Lord.
31 ‘If, therefore, a man wishes to redeem part of his tithe, he shall add
to it one-fifth of it. 32 ‘For every tenth part of herd or flock, whatever
passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord. 33 ‘He is not to be concerned
whether it is good or bad, nor shall he exchange it; or if he does exchange it,
then both it and its substitute shall become holy. It shall not be redeemed.’
Numbers 18:21-32 narrates the strengthening
of the Aaronic Priesthood following the rebellion of Korah and subsequent
judgment. God established Aaron as His representative and the Levites were
given all the tithes in Israel in exchange for their service in the tabernacle.
In turn the Levites were to give a tithe of their portion to the priests. This
passage gives the Leviticus tithe directly to the Levites and indirectly to
God.
Deuteronomy 12:1-19 is the third
tithe passage containing two major commands: (1) remove pagan worship in the
promised land and (2) bring the tithes to the
LORD at His designated location.
Deuteronomy
14:22-29 describes the fourth tithing passage in the Mosaic Law. The
Israelites are commanded to tithe their produce and eat a feast before the LORD at a central location. There is further warning not to forsake the Levite
and a command is given to set aside a tithe for the Levite, strangers, orphans,
and widows every third year.
Deuteronomy 26:12-15, the fifth
passage, continues the third-year tithe. Presumably during a feast of
the people at the central location, the worshipper declares before the LORD that the tithes have been properly
set aside for the poor. The tither then prays for God’s blessings both on the
people of Israel and on the land for productivity.
Number of Tithes
Deuteronomy 14:22-29 leaves the
impression that the Mosaic Law invokes three separate tithes. Verses 22-26
command the Israelites to tithe for the purpose of holding a cultic feast;
verse 27 makes a clear reference to the tithe due the Levite in reflection upon
Numbers 18:30; verses 28 and 29 contain the third year tithe which was to be
used for the poor within Israel. Debate exists over the actual number of tithes
outlined in the Law and there are good scholars on all sides of the issue. Some accept a three-tithe interpretation;
others, a two-tithe view; still others, a one-tithe understanding.
The three-tithes
view enjoys the support of the logical argument stating that the interpretation
founded upon the least number of
presuppositions is most likely to be correct. Both the one-tithe and the
two-tithe views require a greater number of hypotheses than does the
three-tithe reading of the texts. This means then that “tithing” as popularly
taught really does not mean 10 percent of one’s income but 23⅓ percent! I have
never heard that preached from the pulpit and I am certain that I never will!
Purposes for Tithes
Leaving the question of how many
tithes the Mosaic Law includes, a more critical question faces us: why they
were given. The answer to this goes below the surface to expose God’s reasons
for requiring His Old Testament people to tithe.
Tithing in the Ancient Near East
was a matter of custom. With the giving of the tithe law in Leviticus 27, however,
the situation changed for Israel. Yahweh Himself set apart the tithe as His,
and tithing became law. What had been a custom now became a legal obligation.
Maintaining
religious worship was the purpose for the primary tithe found in Leviticus 27
and Numbers 18. This tithe given to the
Levites supported community worship. And, since the tithe was the Levites
inheritance (Numbers 18:21), justice further defined the reason for this
tithe.
As Israel prepared to enter Canaan,
they were given specific directions concerning the pagan religion of the
inhabitants. The Canaanites practiced idolatry “on the high mountains and on
the hills and under every green tree” (Deuteronomy 12:1-3). Because of this, God commanded that the Israelites not worship
in any place other than at the central location of His choosing. The worshipers
would need to travel to that location and a cultic tithe was instituted to
finance the trip and the worship requirements. The clear purpose for this tithe
was to help Israel learn to fear the LORD their God (Deuteronomy 14:23). Personal sacrifice
attended this command, yet it was God’s way of keeping His people separate from
heathenism and to teach them about His uniqueness and their relationship to
Him. Faithfulness characterized the
purpose for this second tithe.
Another problem
facing the Israelites in Canaan would be economic disparity. The poor, the
strangers, the orphans, the widows, and the Levites living in Israelite towns
would need economic aid. God attacked this problem with a third year tithe.
Every Israelite would give a tithe every third year and deposit it in a public
warehouse where the poor could come and draw from it as needed (Deuteronomy
14:28-29). God’s design was to help the less fortunate through the more
fortunate and His blessing would accompany obedience (Deuteronomy 14:29 and
26:15). Mercy specified the purpose
for this third tithe.
Malachi
3:8-10
In interpreting the Old Testament prophets,
we must first understand their three-fold function if their messages are to be
understood. First, they were the moral and ethical teachers of the true
religion based on the Mosaic Law. Second, they warned Israel of the
consequences of breaking the covenant between them and God that they had agreed
to (Exodus 19:1-8), a covenant involving blessings for obedience and curses for
disobedience which were clearly delineated in the Law (Deuteronomy 27, 28). Third,
they predicted future events involving Israel, again directly tied to God’s
covenant promises to His people (Deuteronomy 27, 28).
Malachi’s intent in 3:8-10 is
clear. He shows the people of Israel that they had broken the Mosaic Law by not
paying the required tithes and offerings. “Will a
man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In
tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are
robbing Me, the whole nation of you! (verses 8, 9). But the blessings for obedience are
still available (verses 10-12):
“Bring the whole tithe
into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in
this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if
I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing
until it overflows. Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will
not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its
grapes,” says the Lord of hosts. “All
the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land,” says
the Lord of hosts.
The concern of the prophet in this passage centers on
Israel’s departure from the Mosaic Covenant and the prospects of curses for
disobedience and blessings for obedience.
Old Testament
Offerings
In the interests of completeness, a
brief survey of the Old Testament offerings must be noted since every Israelite
was responsible for both tithes and offerings.
The offerings in the Mosaic Law relate
to the broader topics of sacrifices and approaching God in an acceptable
manner. Of the various categories of offerings, one has special interest for
the present discussion. The free-will offering was given simply out of
love and gratitude to God (Exodus 35:29). It might be properly argued from the Exodus
story that the people were bringing gifts needed for the building of the
sanctuary. True, but Moses had to restrain the people from bringing more
contributions (Exodus 36:6). They did more than enough because their hearts were
moved to give.
One of Israel’s most important
Scriptures is Deuteronomy 6:4-9. Verse 5 states, “You shall love the LORD your
God with all your heart and with all you soul and with all your might”—love
without limits. A deficiency would exist if God had not made it possible for
every person to love God in the unlimited manner expressed in this verse.
Giving lies at the heart of love’s expression. Had the law limited Israel to
tithes, a percentage of their possessions, it would have set limits upon the
degree of love that they could freely express. The offerings, and in particular,
the free-will offering, opened the door to unlimited expression of love through
giving.
Two Testaments but One Theology
Christian ministers preach
selectively from the Old Testament. Psalms and Proverbs are common enough. The
Messianic sections of Isaiah receive periodic attention. Some of the stories
found in the historical books find their way onto the preaching schedule.
Infrequent forays into the remainder of the Old Testament occur.
The reasons for neglect of much of
the Old Testament are clear enough: (1) The Christian does not live under the
laws of the Old Testament but under the New Testament “law of Christ.” (2) The
fuller revelation of the will of God is found in the New Testament. (3) The Old
Testament laws do not govern the activities of the 21st century
Church. (4) Preachers and teachers have difficulty applying the Old Testament
to contemporary society.
This chapter focuses on background
and interpretation issues that will aid in discovering contemporary relevancy of
the Old Testament. Also, tithing will be briefly examined in the period between
the Old and New Testaments.
Various unsatisfactory ways of
relating the Old and New Testaments have been set forth: (1) The Old Testament
is a Jewish book that has little value for the Christian with the exception of
the Messianic sections. (2) The Old
Testament must be read and preached from a genuinely Christian, New Testament
perspective. (3) The interpreter of the Old Testament must “weed out” the
sub-Christian elements and use only those portions that proclaim “Christian
values.”
Each of these viewpoints is
inadequate. The Old Testament is as much a Christian book as a Jewish book. Evangelical
doctrinal statements cite 66 books as Holy Scripture. Also, the Old Testament
must be allowed to speak for itself. To superimpose New Testament values on Old
Testament texts violates any model of responsible interpretation. All of the
Old Testament and its values must be appreciated for what they represent, the
religion of the Old Testament. “Weeding out” some of the Old Testament verses
constitutes rejecting the Evangelical commitment to “plenary inspiration” where
every part of the Bible is equally inspired by God. The problem with each of
these perspectives revolves around the knotty question, “How can I properly use
and preach the Old Testament as a Christian book?”
Acceptable relationships
between the Testaments begin by acknowledging the Old Testament as
authoritative Scripture. The ancient text must not be allegorized, moralized,
ignored, or abused historically or culturally. The following elements should be
adopted by the interpreter: (1) Typology—an Old Testament person, event,
or thing that corresponds with elements in the New Testament must be used with
caution. There are both inferred types and explicit types. The
first involves a suggested correspondence; the second, states a clear
correspondence between the Old and New Testaments. (2) Promise/Fulfillment
patterns certainly exist linking the two Testaments. (3) Salvation history
connects the Old Testament with the New by showing the progressive nature of God’s
plan for saving mankind with the clearer revelation being found in the New
Testament. In general, the Old Testament represents theological immaturity
while the New Testament brings maturity to theological issues. (4) Dispensational
distinctions must be recognized and utilized in interpretation. How God was
accomplishing His purposes in the Old Testament with the Jews differs from how
He fulfills His purposes in the New Testament with the Church. (5) Literal
interpretation must always be the “gold standard” for Bible interpretation!
Each of these five issues should be
considered in relating the Old and New Testaments, but no one issue completely defines
that relationship. The Old Testament is too diverse for a simplistic approach.
With respect to the present study of financial stewardship, the following
relationships must be adopted: salvation history that brings the Holy Spirit’s enabling power to the individual
believer and the church in a way not seen in the Old Testament, dispensational
distinctions that recognizes both the continuity and discontinuity between
the Testaments, and literal interpretation, the hallmark of conscientious
Bible study.
Applying the Old Testament to Our Lives
A practical need regarding the Old Testament
centers on our ability to make legitimate applications from it to our lives,
and to do so in a manner that does not violate the integrity of either the Old
or New Testaments. Biblical theology provides that avenue. Biblical theology as used in this book
focuses on the unified theological structure of the entire Bible. This means
that the Old Testament does not teach doctrines that conflict with the New
Testament. The theological structure of the Old Testament has continuity
with the New Testament, but the historical and cultural issues often
demonstrate discontinuity. For example,
the laws in the Mosaic Covenant that require Israelites to travel to Jerusalem
three times a year for worship (Deuteronomy 16:16) has the theological purpose
of drawing God’s people away from their pagan, idolatrous environment to worship
the one true God. There is theological
continuity with the New Testament by “not forsaking the assembling of
ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25) and to “guard yourselves from idols” (1
John 5:21). But there is also historical discontinuity because the
idolatrous culture of the Old Testament differs from that of the New Testament
making the travel and times irrelevant. The differences in perspective between
the Testaments suggest changes in the religious structure, but not in the
theological structure of the Bible.
The suggested model for using the
Old Testament includes these particulars: (1) Interpret the Old Testament
literally without ignoring its historical and cultural settings. (2) Search for
the theological truth underlying a specific command by discovering what underlying
theological point makes this requirement important. (3) Coming to the New Testament, ask the
following questions: (a) Does the New
Testament adopt the Old Testament teaching? or, (b) Does the New
Testament modify the Old Testament teaching? or, (c) Does the New
Testament abolish the Old Testament teaching? (4) Apply the truth as
expressed in the New Testament. This biblical-theological approach to relating
the Testaments opens the door to making the Old Testament a vital part of our
spiritual lives!
Tithing between
the Testaments and in the New Testament
The three-tithe
system of the Old Testament continued to be in effect without substantive
changes in the period between the Testaments. The basic difference relates to
the distinction between what the Jewish scribes label as the People of the Land and the Associates, and these terms will be used in the following materials. The
former did not follow the tithing and other Jewish laws properly; the latter
were strict followers of the Mosaic Law as expanded and interpreted by the
scribes. Tithing in the Gospels follows Old Testament theology and practices
prior to the inauguration of the Church.
Jesus confronted the religious
leaders about tithing twice during the latter part of His ministry restating
Micah 6:8, “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD
require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with
your God?” Luke records the event in Luke 11:42 and Matthew in 23:23, 24. The
contents of both passages are similar. Jesus did not disapprove of tithing. He
attacked the Associates on the grounds that they kept the letter of the law but
neglected its intent. Matthew 23:23 reads: “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the
weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness;
but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”
(Bold font is mine) Jesus affirmed that the more important factors of justice,
mercy, and faithfulness were being overlooked while the specifics of tithing
were meticulously observed. In both Matthew 23:23-24 and the parallel passage
in Luke 11:42 Jesus underscored the theological foundations, the weightier
provisions of the tithe laws. He rebuked the Associates who kept the external
aspects of the law while ignoring the internal, “weightier” issues, the underlying
theological purposes for those laws.
Luke 18:9-14 narrates the story of
a Pharisee and a tax collector who went into the temple to worship. The
Pharisee prayed to God emphasizing his goodness; the tax collector prayed to
God proclaiming his sinfulness. Jesus concluded that the tax collector found
forgiveness whereas the Pharisee did not. The
Pharisee, recounting his goodness before God, said, “I pay tithes of all that I
get” (verse 12). This Pharisee was exceedingly meticulous in his giving. The
thrust of this parable, however, is the inability of man to procure
justification from God by keeping the letter of the law. The Pharisee had
missed the point.
Hebrews 7 is the only other New
Testament passage mentioning the tithe. Whereas tithing in the Gospels are tied
to the Old Testament dispensation, Hebrews 7 connects to the Church age and
illustrates tithing before the Mosaic Law.
Abraham’s tithed in accordance with
ancient customs. Hebrews 7:4 says that he gave a tenth of the choicest spoils
to Melchizedek. The writer of Hebrews included this tithing illustration to
show the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of Levi, and Genesis 14
is the only place in the Bible where the two could be contrasted. Tithing in
the context of this passage has nothing to do with the financial responsibility
of the Christians to whom the Hebrew epistle is addressed. It has to do with
demonstrating Christ’s superior Priesthood over the Levitical Priesthood.
The Bible consists
of two Testaments both of which are inspired by God and authoritative.
Therefore, it is necessary to teach and use the Old Testament in the Church. If
preachers expect their people to read the whole Bible, and they should, then
the people expect their preachers to preach the whole Bible, and they should. And
since the Old Testament is not a particularly easy book to understand preachers
should model its interpretations and applications from the pulpit. To do less
may leave the people afloat on a sea of confusion and abandon them to
unscrupulous teachers of religion.
With regards to giving money,
preachers and teachers must help people understand the subject as taught
throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments. When done well much confusion can
be dispelled alleviating significant guilt and perhaps increasing the giving in
the pews. The next two chapters demonstrate both continuity with the Old
Testament as well as discontinuity as they answer the ever-present “Why?”
and “How much?” questions arising from the title, “God Doesn’t Need Our Money!
(But We Need to Give It!)”.
The
Jerusalem Church and Its Money
The New
Testament partly explains the Old Testament. Since a clear connection exists between
the Old and New Testaments, this chapter brings the essence of the biblical
teaching of financial stewardship into bold relief. The Jerusalem Church provided
the pattern for giving in the New Testament era and beyond including the 21st
century
The Jerusalem
Church represents the beginning of the Christian Church—a new dispensation in
the earthly purposes of God on earth. The conclusion most consistent with the
biblical data places the historical commencement of the Christian Church at
Pentecost in Acts 2. Proofs include: (1) the mystery aspect of the Church, (2) Matthew 16:18, the post-death,
resurrection, and ascension necessities for the event, and (3) Holy Spirit
baptism.
The Church as a mystery is found in
Ephesians 3:8-9, “To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to
preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of
the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things.” The mystery speaks
of God’s plan of the ages, part of which was not revealed in Scripture until
the New Testament era had begun. Ephesians
3:2-6 describe components of this mystery that arrived by way of revelation to
the Apostle Paul. He defines the mystery, “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs
and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ
Jesus through the gospel” (verse 6). The Church is that mystery which
began at Pentecost in Acts 2 and confirmed in Acts 11:15, “And as I [Peter]
began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at
the beginning.”
Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18
also establishes a proof for the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, “I also
say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and
the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” The significant point here is the
future tense of the verb, I will build.
As a prediction of the future, the beginning of the Church must
post-date Jesus’ promise.
Also, the death of Christ was a prior
necessity for the beginning of the Church. Acts 20:28 makes that claim, “. . .
the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” The resurrection and
the ascension are also necessary as seen in Ephesians 1:19-20, “and what is the
surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe . . . which He brought
about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead,” and Ephesians 4:7-12 where
Christ had to ascend in order to give gifts to His Body, the Church.
Finally, the necessity of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit finalizes the proof for the Church’s birth at
Pentecost. 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the
Church as the Body of Christ, “For by one Spirit we were
all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and
we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” John 7:39 supports this
connection, “. . . for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was
not yet glorified.” The Holy Spirit was “given” on the Day of Pentecost in Acts
2.
The beginning of the Church also
pinpoints the beginning of a new dispensation, a new working out of God’s
purposes on earth. The word dispensation
in Ephesians 3:9 relates descriptively to the term mystery. It may be
translated, “the dispensation characterized by the mystery.” The new
dispensation began when the Church began.
The Jewish character of the Jerusalem
Church must also be considered. The first
Christians were Jews. Acts 1:6-8 has a purely Jewish perspective prior to the
Church’s actual inauguration except for verse 8. The early chapters of Acts have
strong Jewish flavoring. This is clear in Acts 1-9 and directly affirmed in
Acts 10.
After the coming of the Holy Spirit
and the birth of the Church in Acts 2, Peter preached a Jewish message to a
Jewish audience. No indication existed that the Church would include Gentiles
until God revealed this to Peter in Acts 10:9-16, 26-48; and 11:1-18. The first
Christians saw themselves as “enlightened” to the coming of the long-awaited
Messiah, Jesus Christ. This Messianic Christianity as a “sect” of Judaism continued
for decades. The formal beginnings of
separating Christianity from Judaism can be dated at July 19, 64 A.D., the date
of the burning of Rome, but the process was not completed until later in the 1st
century as clearly indicated in Hebrews 8:13, written in 68 or 69 AD, “When He said, “A new covenant,”
He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing
old is ready to disappear.”
The earliest Christians had favor with all the people (Acts 2:47).
But the seeds of eventual separation were planted when the Christians placed
the teachings of Jesus alongside Jewish theology, keeping the former and
modifying the latter when it did not agree with the “apostles’ doctrine.” Acts 5:11 specifically calls the Jerusalem
congregation of believers a church, “And great fear came over the whole church, and over all
who heard of these things.”
Two groups
existed within Judaism when the Jerusalem Church began. The Associates were
strict in their observance of the Mosaic Law. The People of the Land were lax
in religious zeal. The first Christians fit into the first category.
The People of the Land consisted of
the masses of Jewish citizens. They were Israelites who lost touch with
religious zeal and devotion. The Associates, on the other hand, bound
themselves together into Associations to separate themselves from the masses
and to establish “families” in which their religious functions could be carried
out. Many such Associations existed, and they considered themselves, and
themselves alone, to be the true congregation of Israel claiming heir to the
Old Testament promises. The earliest Christians were Associates as seen by the
following sets of facts.
First, they established a society
relationship with members. Acts 2:47 states that “the Lord was adding to their
number day by day” implying a recognizable society. This is further
demonstrated in Acts 4:4, “But many of those who had heard the message
believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.” Again,
Acts 5:13-14 and 6:7 give the obvious impression of Christians voluntarily identifying
themselves as “family.”
Second, the Christians claimed to
be heirs of the Old Testament promises. Acts 2:38-39 is very clear. “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and
your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will
call to Himself.”
Third, Acts 2:47 uses the phrase, those
who were being saved, which is a clear reference to Joel 2:32 quoted by
Peter earlier (Acts 2:38). Joel 2:32 refers to the righteous remnant of Israel
destined to survive until the end of the age. Claiming to be the remnant of
Israel and heirs of the promises indicates that the Christians considered
themselves an Association.
Fourth, the fact that the
Pharisees, who strictly held to the distinction between the Associates and the People of the
Land, did not object to the early Christians demonstrates that the
Christians attained the status of an Association. Acts 2:47 says that the Christians
were “having favor with all the people.” Possibly
“the people” in Acts 2:47 could refer to the people in contrast to the leaders,
the Pharisees and Sadducees, but this is not a necessary interpretation. In
fact, opposition to the earliest Christians did not arise until after Peter and
John performed a notable miracle of healing in
the name of Jesus. And then, the accusation had nothing to do with their
society affairs as much as with their direct attack upon the leaders accusing
them of killing their Messiah, Jesus. In that connection Gamaliel, a Pharisee
of great stature, cautioned the council against taking action against the
Christians because “. . . if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow
them; or else you may even be found fighting against God” (Acts 5:39). This is
a notable concession for a highly respected Pharisee to make. Obviously
Gamaliel did not have great qualms about the activities of the Christians. This
is a tacit acknowledgement of their status as an Association since the Pharisees did not hold the People of the Land in such regard.
Fifth, two activities of the
earliest Christians paralleled the activities of the Jewish Associations. First, the Pharisees
emphasized the proper observance of the Law. The Christians also concerned
themselves with the Law, but with the special emphasis placed upon Jesus’
interpretation as taught by the apostles. Acts 2:42 says that “They were
continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” using the Old
Testament. Second, the Pharisees
strictly tithed. The Christians likewise put great stress on financial
obligations. Although it cannot be demonstrated that they tithed, it would be
equally difficult to prove that they did not. The lack of Pharisaic opposition
would rather indicate that they did pay their dues. The point of emphasis for
the Christians, however, was upon the theology of the tithing laws as expounded
by Jesus and no doubt preached by the apostles. As has been noted previously,
Jesus emphasized the reasons for giving as being the “weightier matters” in the
tithe laws, and the Acts record reveals that the first Christians were diligent
in fulfilling the Old Testament purposes for giving. Also, as the Pharisees
fulfilled their financial obligations within the Association, so the
early Christians emphasized their own religious “family.” All of this leads us to
the discussion of the giving pattern in the Jerusalem Church.
The Jerusalem Church could
characterize its community consciousness as an Israelite nation in miniature. The members depended upon one another. The acts
of one person or group of persons within the larger group directly affected the
whole society. This is seen in the purposes for tithing found in the Mosiac
Law. In the primary tithe, the people were expected to provide for community worship as well as provide the
inheritance for one group within the nation, the Levites. The second tithe
was designed to contribute to community
religious solidarity and faithfulness to Yahweh. The third tithe was above
all an expression of community social
action for needy members of the nation. In these matters, and particularly
in giving, the Jerusalem Church exemplified ancient Israel. Acts 6:l-2a states,
“Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the
daily serving of food.” When one
group within the community suffered, the other members of the family felt a
responsibility to come to their aid. Acts 4:32 and 34-35 further illustrate:
“And the congregation of those who
believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything
belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them . . .
. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land
or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at
the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.”
This pictures a society without poverty
and may be the compared to Deuteronomy 15:4, “there will be no poor among you.”
This financial
sharing in the Jerusalem Church was one aspect of broader social relationships.
To understand this fully, we must survey the critical New Testament word group consisting
of seven different words all developed from the adjective meaning communal
or common. In English these words are variously translated but as fellowship
or share/sharing. New Testament fellowship covers a wide variety of
relational issues, finances being only one. The fundamental idea associated
with the word-group may be summarized as “that which is held in common” within
the community.
There are
three kinds of fellowship appearing in the New Testament. First, there is
fellowship centering on ceremonial religious observances. Mark 7:1-5
underscores this kind. To fellowship with something ceremonially common or unclean is bad; to remain holy or separated from unclean things is good. In other words, the opposite
of the common and accepted status is holy or separated. This usage appears in the Gospels, Acts 10, Romans
14:14, and Hebrews 9:13.
A second type of New Testament
fellowship relates to sin or immorality. Mark 7:14-23 vividly illustrates this
aspect. Other passages include 1 Corinthians 10:18-20; Ephesians 5:11; 1
Timothy 5:22; 2 John 11; Revelation 18:4 and 21:27. In all of these passages
the opposite of common, and again the
accepted position, is holy or separated.
A third order
of fellowship ideas is community fellowship and, in particular for our study,
financial fellowship. Here the specific ideas are to hold some things in common with the community of believers,
that is, to share, and other things
can be kept private by not sharing them. Holding goods
in common constituted the giving pattern of the Jerusalem Church as seen in
Acts 2:44, “And all those who had believed were together and had all things in
common.” Three phrases in this verse hold special interest.
First, all those who had
believed includes the whole church, and this is validated by tracking the pronouns
“those” and “they” from verses 41 through 47.
Second, were together
signifies the oneness of the Church body. A sense of togetherness
abounded with all of the members participating.
Third, and had all things in
common uses a verb of continuous activity and suggests a habitual and customary attitude.
The context does not deny that some things remained private , “While it
remained unsold, did it not remain
your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that
you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to
God.” (Acts 5:4).
Acts 4:32 is even clearer than Acts 2:44 when it comes to defining
the giving pattern of the Jerusalem believers. The verse reads, “And the
congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging
to him was his own; but all things were common property to them.” The congregation
refers to the entire Church body; one heart and soul shows spiritual
union, and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his
own; but all things were common property to them defines financial
fellowship. Unity of thought and feeling existed in that early Christian
community. Not even one of the believers who possessed things needful to the
Church held it privately. They considered such possessions common property.
Selfishness was not yet part of the community’s experience.
From these two defining verses the meaning of
financial fellowship can be summarized as that attitude of unity characteristic of every member of the Church which
placed one’s goods and possessions at the disposal of every believer who had a
need. This illustrates the Old Testament ideal wherein Israel cared its own
so that there would be no poor among the people. But what the Old Testament
people of God were unable to do, the New Testament people of God accomplished
through the instrumentality of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Four facts describe the financial stewardship practices of the
Jerusalem Church. Fact 1, the Jewish-Christians focused on their own Association.
Nothing indicates that they felt responsible to supply the needs of those
outside of their family. Fact 2, every
member of the Church received a full supply of economic assistance when needed.
The “War on Poverty” succeeded. Fact 3, the Jerusalem Church developed
organizational aspects. A growing sense of the need for organization evidences
itself in Acts 2:45, 4:34-35, and Acts 6. The first passage states that the
believers who sold their goods distributed them to whoever needed help. Who
made the distribution is anonymous. The second passage shows the believers
bringing the proceeds of their sold possessions to the apostles who then
distributed the goods to the needy. Finally, Acts 6 shows the organizational
peak in that early Church where seven deacons were chosen to help
distribute goods. Fact 4, one purpose of the Old Testament economy was maintaining community worship which the
Jerusalem Church fulfilled (Acts 2:46). A second purpose of the Old Testament
system of giving was maintaining community
religious solidarity, in other words, faithfulness. There can be no
question about the faithfulness of the Jerusalem Church to their commitment to
Jesus Christ. Acts 2 through 4 make this clear. A third purpose of the Old
Testament pattern of financial stewardship was maintaining the community welfare system. This was an overriding
purpose for giving in the Jerusalem Church as seen in Acts 2 through 6, and
particularly in Acts 2:45 and 4:32-35.
One peripheral but important event
for understanding giving in the Jerusalem Church is the Ananias and Sapphira story
found in Acts 5:1-11. It is related grammatically, historically, and
theologically to Luke’s summary statement concerning the Church’s financial
practices found in Acts 4:32-35.
No content break between Acts 4:37 and 5:1 exists. Acts 4:32-35
summarizes the giving activities of the early Church with the positive example
of Barnabas, and chapter 5 begins with the negative example of Ananias and
Sapphira. Both sold the land for money and both placed the money at the
apostles’ feet. What differs is the death of Ananias and Sapphira, and
more importantly, why they died.
The
theological importance of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the distortion of
the meaning of Christian fellowship. As discussed above, the essence of
fellowship is an attitude based upon the essential unity of the entire
community which places one’s goods at the disposal of any needy member of the Church.
The antithesis of such fellowship is selfishness defined by the phrase one’s
own (Acts 4:32). Ananias and Sapphira
desired the benefits of Christian fellowship without being in harmony with the
spirit of that fellowship. Because of the uniqueness of the Jerusalem
Church and its central position in the plan of God, the sin of Ananias and
Sapphira was extremely grave. For these reasons God rooted this sin out of the
Church in a manner that has never been repeated and probably never will. The doctrine
and fellowship of the Jerusalem Church served as the foundation for local
church life beyond Jerusalem. A distortion of that fellowship ideal could not
be allowed to entrench itself within and potentially extend itself beyond the
inaugural Jerusalem Church.
Financial Stewardship in
the Expanded Church of the New Testament
As the Old Testament tithing
practices projected its influence into the Jerusalem Church, so the Jerusalem
Church and its giving practices influenced both local churches and the
Universal, or worldwide, Church, after Acts 8.
The Jerusalem Church in its
inception was both local and universal. It was the only Christian Church. Eventually,
however, it ceased to comprise the whole of Christendom. Prior to His ascension
the Lord told the disciples, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit
has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judaea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts l:8).
Christ’s commission constitutes the effective
cause for the Church’s expansion beyond Jerusalem beginning in Acts 8:1.
The Jerusalem
Church found favor with the people of the city (Acts 2:47), but this peaceful
coexistence soon subsided. An act of healing by the apostles (Acts 3),
apostolic preaching of the divine Jesus whom the Jews had put to death (Acts
4:10 and 5:40), and the bold sermon by Stephen (Acts 7) eventuated in persecution that
forced the Church into other parts of the world. This became the immediate cause for the expansion of the Church.
Further, one may propose a theological cause for Church
expansion. The Jerusalem Church, both local and universal, provided the pattern
for future local churches. Had God allowed that Church to disintegrate into
strife and factions, the model for future churches would have become clouded.
Note Acts 6:1, “Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part
of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows
were being overlooked in the daily serving of
food.” The focal point of the factional “grumbling” was the neglect of
providing for the needs of the Hellenistic widows. Time and the weaknesses of
human nature militated against the complete unity of the Jerusalem Church. God
protected this pattern Church by allowing it to be scattered before the members
developed faulty behavior patterns that could infect other local churches.
The Jerusalem Church fulfilled its
function. After Acts 8 it became a local church only, though a very significant
one. The fellowship that it exhibited continued to be practiced throughout the
world in other local churches.
Summary
Financial giving in local
assemblies after Acts 8 paralleled the pattern established by the Jerusalem
Church. Wrapped up in the clause, “they were having all things common,”
economic fellowship continued unabated in three categories: (1) Christians gave
to alleviate the social needs of the
community of believers, (2) they gave to
maintain community worship, and (3) they gave to express personal devotion to God. The fellowship/sharing word
group illustrates these categories. Furthermore they reflect the Old Testament
and New Testament ideals of justice, faithfulness and mercy.
Social Needs
Financial fellowship consists of an
attitude of oneness that places one’s goods and possessions at the disposal of
believers in need. The apostle Paul urged this attitude on the Roman Christians.
Romans 12 emphasizes individual
Christian responsibilities. In devoting both body and mind to God, the readers
must think about their responsibilities as members of the Body of Christ. Verse
9a establishes love as the essence of Christian behavior, and the following
verses outline love’s obligations.
Romans 12:13a,
a financial fellowship verse, reads in part, “contributing to the needs
of the saints.” Contributing/fellowshipping means “to participate in
something,” and in this case, the participation involves the needs themselves. One
who personalizes the need of another, seeing it as their own, does all he can to alleviate that
need. This attitude echoes Acts 4:32, “And the congregation of those who
believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all
things were common property to them,” and Acts 2:45, “And they began selling their property and
possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”
1 Timothy 6:18 also deals with
social issues of the local church, “Instruct
them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to
share.” Through Timothy Paul addresses the wealthy within the local assembly to
participate in the fellowship, translated by “ready to share.” The
key verses are 17-19 and focus on four aspects of giving: (1) do not think in a
high-minded fashion, (2) do not to set your hope upon uncertain wealth, (3) be
rich in good works, and (4) be sharers and participants in the fellowship.
The financial obligations that the
rich have towards poorer Christians evidences themselves particularly in two adjectives,
to be generous and to participate in the fellowship. The ending of fellowship carries the sense
of “belonging to” or “pertaining to.” Putting this grammar together with the
word meaning we have the following: Timothy must command the rich to identify with
the believing community and hold some things “in common” as a characteristic of
the fellowship. In other words, adopt the attitude of Acts 4:32.
Community Worship
Galatians 6:6, “The one who is
taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. “To share
is the fellowship word teaching that local churches had the
responsibility of supplying the needs of the teachers of the Word of God. In
Acts both the ministers and the people had equal access to the common treasury.
This continued in the local churches after Acts 8. Galatians 6:6 illustrates
this as a norm of Christian fellowship. Paul reminds the believers of
their financial responsibilities to their ministers whose means of support, partly
at least, depended upon the common treasury. No direct evidence exists about
how much the hearers were to give but the fellowship* word used coupled
to the phrase in all good things indicates that the ministers were to
have access to the common treasury.
Personal Devotion
The preceding two sections strongly
imply personal devotion. A Christian unconcerned with the needs of his
Christian family, does not fulfill the divine imperatives. One usage of the fellowship
word group relates specifically to the devotional aspect of fellowship. Hebrews
13:15-16 reads, “Through Him [Christ] then, let us continually offer up a
sacrifice of praise to God, that is the fruit of lips that give thanks to His
name. And do not neglect doing good and
sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased.”
These three verses must be seen
together. The two ideas of verse 16a, “doing good and sharing,” [author’s
italics to identifiy the word group] grammatically form a singular, two-pronged
concept. The plural “sacrifices” of 16b,
therefore, includes (1) the offering up of a sacrifice of praise in verse 15
and (2) the doing good and sharing in verse 16. One other difference
between verse 15 and 16a must be mentioned. The “us” in verse 15 includes the
writer and his readers, but in 16a the command “do not neglect” understands
“you” in the English imperative referring to the readers. The writer of Hebrews
reminds Christians of their financial obligations. Finally, the Greek tense of the command stresses the continual
obligations of doing good and sharing.
The Universal
Church
The early Jerusalem Church was both
local and universal with one simple pattern of financial stewardship. After
Acts 8, however, the situation changed radically. The Jerusalem Church
continued its giving pattern locally but necessarily altered its giving in the
universal realm. The same held true for every other local church in the world.
The greater number of financial
stewardship verses in the New Testament discuss Universal Church giving. While
individual churches knew their responsibilities at home, they were often
unaware of the economic circumstances of Christians elsewhere. The problems of
geography, however, did not set aside responsibility but intensified the need
for information. This explains Paul’s repeated remarks about the needs of the
Judean believers. He not only gave out needed information,
but also used it as an opportunity to teach believers about their financial
fellowship obligations towards all members of the worldwide Church.
Local churches as members of the
Universal Church gave (1) to maintain the social welfare of Christians
elsewhere in the world, (2) to maintain worship, in this case promoting
missionary activities, and (3) to maintain personal devotion to God. Again, reproducing
the Old Testament’s and New Testament’s emphases on justice, faithfulness, and
mercy. As above, the fellowship word group becomes the center of
attention.
The Universal Church, like its
Jerusalem predecessor, functioned similarly despite geographic hindrances. The
similarities include (1) the recognition of a financial need, (2) the
recognition of a fellowship responsibility to alleviate the needs based upon
the unity of the Body of Christ, and (3) outworking of the principle of holding
things in common. As above, the “common” word group is the center of attention.
Acts 11:27-30
These verses
demonstrate that the dispersion of Christians did not obliterate the fellowship
ideals established in the Jerusalem Church. Though the fellowship word
group does not occur, many parallels to the early chapters of Acts are evident.
After Acts 8:1 the Church extended
into Samaria and eventually into Antioch of Syria. In Antioch a predominantly
gentile church sprung up. The Jerusalem church, hearing of the event, sent
Barnabas to Antioch, who, when he had come, traveled to Tarsus to enlist Paul
for the Antioch ministry. Acts 11:26 continues the story, “And for an entire
year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers.” Luke notes the
response of the disciples at Antioch and the humanitarian mission to Jerusalem to
give economic relief to the struggling believers in the midst of famine.
Four
parallels between this event and the earlier chapters of Acts are evident,
perhaps due to Barnabas’ teachings (cp. Acts 4:36-37 with 11:26) and the
personal experiences of those from the scattered Jerusalem Church (cp. Acts
11:19-21). First, the Antioch Christians felt a responsibility for the well-being of
Christians elsewhere. Acts 11:29 indicates that the members of the church at
Antioch originated the desire to help the Jerusalem believers. Luke
individualizes the persons involved, each of them determined to send
relief according to his abilities. Second, the Christians at Antioch determined
that they would do something practical about the misfortunes of the Judean
Christians. The verb determined means “to resolve.” Luke did not define
the disciples’ response as a wish or desire but a resolve to act according to
their ability. Third, the Antioch believers considered contribution for the poor
in Judaea a ministry. A definite community function was being accomplished for
the relief of suffering Christians. Luke’s use of relief, commonly
translated ministry compares to his use in Acts 1:17 and 25 where
apostolic ministry is intended. More importantly, however, it occurs in Acts
6:1 where the ministry of providing food for widows is discussed. The next
usage appears here at Acts 11:29 where similarly the economic needs of
believers are involved. As deacons were appointed to minister to tables in
Jerusalem, so these believers appointed themselves to “minister to tables” in
Judaea. Fourth, the leadership of the church at Antioch oversaw the
distribution of the goods. Acts 11:30 says, “And this they did, sending it in
charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.” The sending church appointed
leaders to transport the contribution, and the elders of the churches of Judaea
received the funds. This parallels Acts 4:35.
Acts 11:27-30
affirms that the financial fellowship so strong in Jerusalem before the
dispersion continued to be strongly felt by Christians after the dispersion.
All Christians belonged to the same Church, and all Christians were legitimate objects
of financial fellowship. Note Luke’s choice of the term “brethren” to describe
the needy party. This term is used of members of religious communities, and
hence of Christians in their relations to one another whatever their geographic
location.
Social Needs
Romans 15:25-29 shows that the Gentile
churches recognized their obligation to have financial fellowship with their
Jewish brothers in Judaea by sending money. This passage occurs at the end of
the book of Romans where Paul explains his itinerary to the Roman church. He
plans to go to Spain stopping at Rome on the way, but before this journey he
needs to go to Jerusalem in service to the saints (Romans 15:25) having
received monetary aid for them from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. Various
interpretations have been given to explain this collection activity of Paul
among Gentile churches, but the demands of true Christian fellowship provides
the basic motivation as confirmed by these verses.
The Christians of Macedonia and
Achaia knew that the saints in Jerusalem, a technical term for
Christians, were dependent on others for support. An obvious economic need
existed within Christendom and the Gentile believers recognized their Christian
obligation to do all in their power to alleviate that need. Paul very clearly
classifies this obligatory aspect of the Macedonian and Achaean believers as an
act of financial fellowship (Romans 15:26). Since the Gentile Christians fellowshipped (Romans
15:27) in the Jewish believers’ spiritual things, the Gentile believers are
morally obligated to minister to their Jewish brothers in need. In Paul’s
explanation in verses 26 and 27, the phrase “they are indebted to minister to
them also in material things” may be seen as a general principle of payment for
service, but the specific fellowship principle emerges placing both spiritual
and material wealth in a common treasury available to all. The Gentiles partook
of the spiritual benefits that God worked in and through Israel by becoming
“one new man in Christ” with the Jews (Ephesians 2:14-16). As joint members of
Christ’s Body they assumed their rightful fellowship obligations.
The Gentile
believers not only recognized but responded gladly to their financial obligations
to their brothers in Judaea. “They were pleased” (Romans 15:27) implies that the
contribution was voluntary, and made with heartiness and good will.
Paul describes this act of
financial fellowship as a fruit (Romans 15:28). Giving was the
fruit of the faith and love of the believers in Macedonia and Achaia and a
token of the bond of fellowship existing between these believers and the
saints at Jerusalem. The point is basic. When Christians encounters an economic
need, other believers must fellowship financially whenever possible regardless
of geography.
Other secondary Scripture passages
expand the information about the giving pattern in the Universal Church illustrated
by the needs of the Judean Christians. First Corinthians 16:1-4 treats the
subject briefly and 2 Corinthians 8-9 at greater length. These Corinthian
passages establish agreement with the teachings of Romans 15 but focus one
other important insight. Whereas tithing is neither denied nor invoked in Acts
2-7, these Corinthian passages do not include or mention Old Testament tithing.
If tithing was to be the “standard” for giving in the New Testament, these
passages would be the place to command it.
Paul ministered
about three years at Ephesus and Macedonia during his third missionary journey
during which time he wrote 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 Paul
instructed the Corinthian church about a collection for the Jerusalem saints. A
few months later he again encourages them about this collection in greater
detail (2 Corinthians 8 and 9).
The economic need around which the
Corinthian passages revolve parallels Romans 15:25-28 even though 2 Corinthians
8 and 9 do not specify the need and 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 merely states that “the saints” were in need and the collection was to be sent to Jerusalem. The chronology of the
Corinthian epistles with Romans, and the mention of Macedonia and Achaia in
Romans 15:26 and 2 Corinthians 8:1 and 9:2 leave the issue undeniable. Romans
15:27 mentions the debt Christians have for the economic welfare of other
Christians. Second Corinthians 8:13-15 agrees using equality as the mode
of expression. Both Romans 15:25-28 and the Corinthian passages show the true
fellowship principle firmly imbedded in the Universal Church.
These
Corinthian passages also contribute to the tithe argument. Under the Mosaic
economy tithing was required of everyone. Not so in the New Testament. The
Christian is bound neither by amount nor duty. The amount relates directly to
what finances one has over and above essential needs. First Corinthians 16:2 is
clear even though numerous discussions on the passage cloud the issue. The
phrase translated as he may prosper serves well in translation as long
as the word “as” is not taken to mean a tithe-like percentage. Those who speak
of proportionate giving from this scripture leave the erroneous implication
that it teaches tithing. The better translation of the Greek phrase is
“whatever.” This construction occurs in John 2:5 and correctly translated
“whatever,” and in Colossians 3:17, again correctly translated “whatever.” The point
cannot be clearer. The only percentage one could legitimately claim from this
verse is 100% over and above one’s basic needs!
Second Corinthians 8:13-l5
elaborates further on the amount to be given. Verse 14 speaks of the
Corinthians’ “abundance” supplying the “deficiency” of the Jerusalem
Christians. Paul is not suggesting that the Corinthians give until they are in
need. However, 2 Corinthians 8:3 needs explanation. “For I testify that
according to their ability, and beyond their ability they gave of their own accord.” The principle of equality operates
during times of abundance as well as deficiencies. Paul’s emphasis on the Corinthians’
abundance, however, suggests the norm, and he refused to press for equality of
poverty when he was present with the already poor Macedonians (2 Corinthians
8:2-4). The Macedonians had to beg Paul to take their contribution.
Finally, the
“how much” question comes to the forefront! The amount to be given relates to
the need involved (2 Corinthians 8: l4), to the abundance on hand (1
Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:14) and also to the non-compulsive willingness
on the part of the giver. Second Corinthians 8:11 reads, “that just as there was the readiness to desire it, so
there may be also the completion of
it by your ability.”
Second
Corinthians 9:7 expands upon the discussion of giving that can be disturbing
for many, especially for church leaders, “Each must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or
under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” The Christian
has a fellowship obligation to give willingly and not compelled to do so
by a tithing “requirement.” If he is
unwilling, biblically he is denied the privilege to give. Second Corinthians
9:7 contains grammatical omissions (called ellipsis)
which, when translated fully, reads with omissions underlined, “Each must do
just as he has purposed in his heart,” let him give, but let him not give
grudgingly or under compulsion, for God
loves a cheerful giver.” The implied imperative, let him give, is negated in
the following elliptical clause, let him not give. True Christian giving must be done willingly without
compulsion. If a Christian tithes as a compulsive duty and not coupled with a
willing heart, he has missed the mark of New Testament giving.
Tithing was originally incorporated
into the Mosaic legislation from the cultural backgrounds of the ancient world.
The law aspects of tithing have direct bearing upon the “spiritual infancy” of
the Old Testament religion (Galatians 3:23, 24; 4:2). Children need rules to guide
them to do what is right when they are as yet incapable of acting properly from
logical and biblical reasoning alone. The theology of the New Testament has
grown to maturity, and the previously needed laws should no longer be necessary
to attain the internal spiritual ends involved in giving: Justice,
Faithfulness, and Mercy.
Christian Worship
Philippians
contains the primary Scriptures teaching the responsibility of the worldwide
Church for increasing and maintaining Christian worship through the missionary
enterprise. The Apostle Paul wrote Philippians during his first Roman
imprisonment around the year 62 or 63 A.D. He had at least a two-fold purpose:
(1) to express thanksgiving to the Philippians for the monetary aid, and (2) to
give practical admonitions concerning church unity.
Two portions
of Philippians touch upon financial fellowship, verse 1:5 where the
occasion for thanksgiving is expressed by your participation/fellowship
in the gospel, and 4:10-20 where Paul says in verse14,
“Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.” Both passages speak directly to
the monetary gift using the fellowship word group.
Philippians 4:10-20 reveals the
financial fellowship responsibilities of local churches towards the
needs of missionaries. Paul had a personal need. This is implied by
“affliction” in 4:14 which, though possibly referring to his imprisonment
experiences (cp. 1:17), surely eventuated in the need noted in 4:16, “for even
in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs”. Verse 4:18
also mentions Paul’s financial scarcity, “But I have received everything in
full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from
Epaphroditus what you have sent.”
Four aspects
of the fellowship responsibility involved in Philippians 4:10 and
following are clearly seen. First, a definite responsibility exists
according to verse l5, in the matter of giving and receiving, technical
terms drawn from the business world of the first century meaning literally an
account involving “debit and credit.” The whole context is brimming with
financial terms, the central theme of verses 14-20. Financial responsibility is
confirmed by the existence of an “account” in verse 17 that Paul does not
attempt to establish but assumes. Second, this financial obligation is
one of fellowship. Paul’s statement, “no church shared with me in
the matter of giving and receiving but you alone” (verse 15). Third, all local churches live under
this financial obligation. Paul indicates this in verse 15 when he writes, “no
church . . . but you alone” fellowshipped financially in the account,
implying that the account relates to more churches than the Philippian church. Fourth,
God bestowed this obligation on local churches. The Apostle Paul did not set up
this account. The simplex form of the verb shared in verse 15 partially
supports this contention. The compound form of the verb would have been
appropriate, as seen in verse 14, if a mutual account between Paul and the
churches was meant. The fellowship responsibility depicted here is unilateral.
Paul claims no direct relationship to the account. Notice verse 17 and the
phrase “your account” referring to the Philippian church’s account with God.
Verse 18 further enforces the idea that God
holds the churches responsible for giving financial support to missionaries.
The verse reads, “But I have received everything in full, and have an
abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have
sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.” Paul
received the gift, and God was pleased. Certainly Paul was pleased also because
the Philippians’ gift effectively balanced their account before God. The phrase of verse 17, “the profit
which increases to your account” has the positive effect of reducing and
balancing the overall debt of financial fellowship. This was Paul’s concern,
and this was what the Philippian church did, and both Paul and God were
pleased.
Verse 19 further indicates God’s
part in holding churches responsible for fellowship towards missionaries and
contains a divine principle—God, through His people, supplies the needs of
His people. It says that God will supply every need the Philippians may
have, and that God’s supply would be according to His measure of wealth “in
Christ Jesus.” A Christian’s material needs will be supplied by virtue of being
“in Christ,” that is, by being related to the Body of Christ, the Church.
Obviously the members of that Body must minister to one another in material
things for this to be accomplished. God is the subject of the verse and His
wealth is deposited with believers through whom He supplies the needs of His
people. God, through His people, supplies the needs of His people is the
scriptural norm in both Testaments.
Personal Devotion
Devotion to
Christ expresses itself through financial fellowship with believers in need in
each of the passages studied in the previous two sections. Second Corinthians
8:8 and 24 reveal this clearly, “I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others
the sincerity of your love also. . . . Therefore openly before the churches,
show them the proof of your love and of our reason for boasting about you.” One
could claim that these verses speak of the mutual love among
believers, but this act of love is also an act of “obedience to [their]
confession of the gospel of Christ” (2 Corinthians 9:13).
Philippians 4:18 reflects on the
spiritual outcome of material sharing among Christians, “a fragrant aroma, an
acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.” The word fruit [NASB “profit”]
in Philippians 4:17, the result of their giving, shows their increasing
spiritual devotion. It refers to that positive spiritual growth of a vital
Christian experience.
Theological
and Practical Considerations
The Bible presents a unified
pattern of giving. God’s desires for His people do not change. This gives rise
to various theological and practical issues that have either been overlooked or
avoided. The purpose of this chapter is to explain their relationship to the
central thesis without necessarily trying to resolve these problems.
Theological
Considerations
Proof-texting
The Bible teaches the same
stewardship principles in both the Old and New Testaments, but the secondary
details differ, most particularly, the tithe. What text does one select to
preach or teach financial stewardship? Choosing Malachi 3:8-10, for example, as
the primary statement of biblical giving for the Christian is unjustifiable. Or
selecting 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 as the key biblical proof text for the tithe is
equally without merit. Both passages contribute to the doctrine of giving, but
neither exhausts it.
What one needs is a passage that
bridges both Testaments and leads to the theological underpinnings of the
doctrine. Matthew 23:23-24 provides that bridge. Following the exposition of
this singularly central Scripture, one can venture back to the Old Testament
and forward into the New to integrate the full biblical doctrine of financial
stewardship all the while maintaining the central principles of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Such
teachings could be a series.
Religious Maturation
The religion of Old Testament
Judaism was theologically immature in comparison to the maturity of New
Testament Christianity. Given this conclusion, some aspects of the Old
Testament religion, though good in their own context, have little or no place
in Christianity. For example, the Old Testament mandates tithing, but no such
mandate exists for Christianity. Likewise, some aspects of the New Testament
religion must not be forced upon Israel of old. For instance, giving nothing is
mandated in Christianity when the giver does not want to give, but giving
nothing within the covenant system of Israel was intolerable. The development
of biblical theology has rarely been incorporated into many theological
statements when the topic of financial stewardship takes center stage.
Divine Intentions
God’s purposes for financial
stewardship transcend money. He longs for the spiritual commitments that giving
involves. A legitimate biblical theology of financial stewardship must center
on spiritual ends. For instance, the doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology) must
include a study of financial stewardship, not only as God’s pattern for
financing His work, but as God’s pattern for the expression of Christian
fellowship. When a biblically-defined fellowship flourishes financial resources
follow.
Local Church Autonomy
Numerous church denominations
espouse the autonomy of the local church. It is truly biblical. However, the
theology of the Church must in some way include an interdependency of local
churches. The Body of Christ is an organically connected entity, and this
connectedness includes financial stewardship.
Community Consciousness
“Fellowship” defines the biblical pattern of financial stewardship for the New
Testament Church. Correctly understood, this denies the validity of a profit
motive within the Body of Christ. Any stewardship emphasis that includes such a
motive to raise funds is unchristian and unbiblical. Pastors, teachers,
theologians, any Christian leader attempting to increase giving must consider
soberly the Ananias and Sapphira story as a distortion of the principle of
fellowship for personal or corporate gain.
Non-Christian Money
Biblically the people of God
shoulder the responsibility to support God’s programs and people. This was true
in the Old Testament. Israel aided Israel. This was also true in the New
Testament. Christians fellowshipped with Christians. Expecting God to “spoil
the gentiles,” so to speak, to marshal funds to support His people and programs
must be considered outside the biblical norm. Third John 6-8 stands as a
specific justification for this view. This is not to say that such could not
occur, but it would be exceptional. A proper biblical theology of financial
stewardship must emphasize what the Word of God emphasizes. Anything else
distorts the truth. Undeniably, the Bible teaches that God’s people are
obligated to finance God’s programs including the welfare of needy believers.
Non-Christian Poor
A corollary of the preceding
principle cannot be ignored. Christians supporting Christians takes priority
over Christians supporting non-Christians. Of course, other overlapping
principles exist, such as, “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). But one
should not become “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, in principle) by
overlooking the family of God in favor of helping the unregenerate world.
Practical
Considerations
A Leadership Goal
A focus of every Christian leader
should be to bring every believer to full maturity in Christ (Colossians 1:28).
If tithing relates to the spiritual immaturity of the Old Testament religion as
presented in the preceding pages then it may be spiritually defeating for
Christian leaders to promote tithing as the Christian mode of giving. Tithers
may never grow into full Christian maturity; willing givers cannot help but
grow in Christ.
The need to raise money probably
stands behind a push for tithing, but Christian leaders must divorce
stewardship pleas from the money and concentrate on the spiritual growth of the
givers that is tied directly to financial stewardship. Paul’s testimony to this
end in Philippians 4:17-18 cries out for emulation today.
One should not construe, however,
that tithing is necessarily wrong or sinful or taboo. God expected His Old
Testament people to tithe rightly, that is, accompanied by justice, mercy, and faithfulness. People can still do this
today. However, if tithing contributes to denying fellowship, the “I gave at the office” syndrome as an
example of avoidance, unchristian behavior exists. God’s requirement is not a percentage but a provision.
Christian Fellowship
For believers
in Christ to be able to exercise biblical fellowship, they must know the needs
of the Body of Christ. But, given the ingrained and cultural norm in American
society of the sanctity of personal information, financial needs are rarely
shared by hurting individuals or church leaders. Herein lies a conflict between
Christianity and culture, and Christian leaders must grapple with this knotty
problem if they expect God’s people to open their wallets. God holds His people
responsible for meeting the needs of the Church. He does not expect or
encourage them to give blindly or irresponsibly. Neither should Christian
leaders.
It is God who touches the hearts of
givers to meet needs. How can their
hearts be touched if needs are not known? It is God who holds individual
Christians responsible to give wisely. How
can they function wisely without knowledge?
Conversely, it is God who requires
shepherds to help not hurt the sheep. How
can they help if they bring open embarrassment and shame in a privacy conscious
society? It is God who commissions Christian leaders to marshal support for
His people. How can they sensitize
willing hearts without sharing sensitive information?
Christian fellowship presents
significant problems for Christian leaders and laity alike. But solutions can
be discovered for the benefit of all concerned.
Trust is the primary ingredient
needed by Christian leaders enabling them to appeal for money without violating
confidences. For some this may be a given; others may need to develop it; all
need to guarantee it. A regular audit by an independent agency with written
reports to the giving constituency can go a long way in developing and
sustaining trust.
The primary ingredient needed by
the givers is a sustainable faith that God’s work is being done God’s way. The
opportunity to participate in funding decisions and an independent audit may
satisfy the faith requirement.
The cultural requirement for guaranteeing the
privacy of personal information will continue unabated in American society.
Also, the requirement for knowledge of the needs within the Christian community
cannot be dismissed since it lies at the heart of the biblical stewardship
mandate. A procedure, therefore, needs to be put in place that can effectively
meet both of these requirements.
Acts 2:44 and 4:32-35 bring justification
to the idea of creating an economic support fund that mirrors the Old Testament
pattern of “storehouse giving” (cf. Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Practical necessity
demands a program allowing for immediate responses to needs awareness. Here
again, the absolute demand for trust cannot be overestimated, and a periodic
audit by an independent examiner can become the backbone of such trust. Without
the economic pool many needs may go unfulfilled; without trust in the fund
administrators the pool will not have sufficient money.
Cooperative Programs
Local church autonomy is an
important but not necessarily an overriding issue. The New Testament knows
nothing of minimizing or eliminating local church responsibility within the
larger Universal Church. Christian leaders need to investigate the possibility
of having financial fellowship with others of like faith. An example might be
the pattern adopted by some larger congregations of splitting off a significant
segment of the church to “jump start” a new assembly. Still others send
short-term workers to build churches in developing countries. However
accomplished every local church has a God-ordained connection with and share
the responsibility for the economic well-being of the Church universal.
For Further
Reading
Blomberg, Craig L. Neither Poverty nor Riches. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Getz, Gene A. Real Prosperity: Biblical Principles of Material Possessions. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1990.
___ ___________. A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions.
Chicago: Moody
Press, 1990.
Webb, Michael L. and Mitchell T.
Webb. Beyond Tithes & Offerings. Tacoma,
WA: On Time Publishing, 1998.
Wretlind, Dennis O. Shekels,
Dollars & Sense: A Biblical Theology of Financial Stewardship, Trafford
Publishing, 2006. Available also at Amazon.Com.
