Expert: LEBoyd - 7/29/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hello. I simply want to understand this verse of scripture, due to the information i have attained in my searching for answers. Many churches use tithing as a spiritual requirement for salvation. I have not found in scripture were we as new covenant believers are to tithe. the closest form of commission i have found is in mat 23:23. the apostles never taught on this portrayed requirement. Thank you

ANSWER: Zach,

You are correct that under the New Testament law we do not have the commandment to "tithe".  We are taught throughout the Old and New to give back to God for many purposes (e.g., pay the preacher [Gal 6:6], support missionaries [1 Cor 16:2] and the poor [Rom 15:26], just to name a couple).

Luke 6:38 tells us that God will bless us when we give (although it doesn't say He will give us financial wealth because of giving).

2 Cor 8 is a great chapter on giving, showing those who gave out of their proverty.  However, the big key in giving is in verse 5 - they first gave themselves to the Lord.

When deciding on how much to give, many use the Old Testament as a guideline (in fact, too many attempt to apply the tithe as "law", when it is not for Christians).  As you mention, the Israelites were commanded to tithe of their first fruits.  In addition, there were many other sacrifices and gifts they were commanded to do.  This, effectively, increased their giving beyond the "10%" number.  Mal. 3:8-12 shows that the Jews did not always do this and God was very upset with this, telling them that they were stealing ("rob") from Him.

Then we look at the promise of the hope of eternal life (Tit. 3:7) and the gift of His Son (2 Cor. 5:21), and the blesses that all that brings.

Now, consider the Old and the New Testaments and you decide how much is the right amount.  

My personal opinion (and it is an opinion, not law) is that we should give of our first fruits (e.g. "Gross Pay") at least 10%.  It's not the law, but I personally see the spiritual blesses by giving to God first.  However, if it's not from your heart ("God loves a cheerful giver." [2 Cor 9:7]) it doesn't mean much.

Now, specifically to your question on Matt. 23:23.  The Pharisees and scribes were giving (they knew Mal. 3:8), but they were not giving from their heart.  In Matt. 12:1-8 Jesus and His disciples pick grain to eat on the Sabbath.  They were challenged by the Pharisees and Jesus answers, "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."  Matt. 23:23 is similar.  You must follow the Law, but just following the Law isn't enough and never was (Deut. 6:4-9).

Hope this helps.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello again. I would like to understand the role of leadership in the church. In my research I have found that scripture does not support one person above another. This is what Jesus said, and Paul said not being lords over God's heritage. The scripture also concludes be subject one to another. With this information how should I approach leadership as it is fashioned in the church now. I understand give honor to whom honor is due. but i see so many people esteeming their perspective leaders above everything and all else. I think this is respect of person, and dangerous as it allows for a cult like mentality, and denies the opportunity for one to be instructed in correction outside of the proposed leader. Am i wrong in this view or should i just conform to this (I think absent mindedness)state of membership?

ANSWER: Zach,

Actually, there is a hierarchy in the local congregations, but not beyond that (except for Christ).  And it is true that each individual is responsible for their own salvation.  So, let me see if I can explain this.

First, we have no examples of one or more leaders over multiple congregations (except specifically the Apostles, selected by Jesus, blessed with the ability to do miracles and spoken to directly by the Holy Spirit).  Therefore, there are no priests, no super-elders, no leadership beyond the congregations.

Second, we see that there are elders within the congregations (Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5).  In Acts 20, starting at verse 17, Paul has called the elders of Ephesus together with him.  He says many things (as you can read), but says that "savage wolves" will come from among them (many consider the "them" to be the elders) not "sparing" the flock - or to lead them astray.  In verse 28, he tells them to be on guard, be "overseers", to "shepherd the flock" and in verse 31, he again tells them to be on alert.

In 1 Tim 3:1ff, Paul talks about the overseers.  He explains who they should be, and how they should act (also see Titus 1:7ff).  In 5:27, he says for the elders to rule, voluntarily.  I also see in 5:19 that an elder can do wrong - they're not perfect.

Peter says in 1 Pet 5:1ff for the elders to shepherd the flock, "exercising oversight".  Verse 4 is very important, as it talks about the Chief Shepherd - who is Christ Jesus.  For we know that Jesus is also our "High Priest" (Heb 3:1).

1 Pet 5 goes on to talk about being in subjection to the elders, and specifically mentions the "young men".  I think it mentions young men specifically, because it's us young guys who question authority more than others.

You can also see that there is the office of deacon in 1 Tim 3, and Paul references the overseers and deacons in Phil 1:1.

So, what can we take away from all these references (and others)?

There is an order in the local congregation.  The order begins with the elders, who have oversight and the purpose to guide and guard the flock (the congregation) to eternal life.  Next we have deacons, who have the responsibility of doing specific work as outlined by the elders.  Then we have the rest of the congregation.  (As with tithing, think about the Israelite nation.  God set up an order, with the purpose of helping to keep the nation pure and providing the lineage of Christ.  However, each Israelite was responsible for themselves.)

The whole purpose for the organization of the congregation is to help ensure the salvation of all the members and to have an orderly congregation.  It's not to elevate one man or group of men over others.  The congregation is in subjection to the elders, but that is not "blind" subjection.  Since we know elders can go wrong (from Acts 20) and there are the warnings to elders about their roles, we are also to be vigilant for those kinds of elders.

I then come to the conclusion that if a local congregation has a group (two or more) of qualified men to serve as elders, and that group of men is doing it for the purpose of helping the flock gain salvation, then they are doing their duty in serving God and the congregation.  I have the responsibility of following them, unless I see through the Scripture that they are wrong.  Then I have the obligation to meet with them and discuss the issue.

Hope this helps.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: To what degree are we subject to leadership? I have heard some quote scripture "as a means to instill such obedience" obey those that have the rule or authority over you. At the church I presently attend our leader assumes the title of Apostle. There are 32 churches in our congregation, of those 32 churches 5 are headed by a Bishop who has a governing body of elders. And the remaining churches have pastors and a governing body of elders. They practice legalistic guidelines I think in requiring the tithe and and abstaining from sporting events, movies, etc. The affirmation of these views is HOLINESS. I respect my leader as such " a legate Apostle" who has established churches, but I don't agree with everything from the pulpit. I think they apply some scripture in a literal sense with out the true context of the scripture. So with your previous response in being subject to leadership, I
ask - To What Degree?

Answer
Zach,

As I mentioned in the previous response, ultimately we are subject to God and Christ.  However, while on earth we are part of the Body of Christ, which is His church.

When we look at the first century church, we see that each congregation was independent, with its own leadership of elders, shepherds, overseers or bishops (the terms in the Greek are interchangeable, so the English translation could be one of many English words).  While the Apostles (with a capital "A", meaning these were the 14 men chosen by Jesus as His Apostles [14 being the first 12, the replacement of Judas in Acts 1 and the selection of Paul in Acts 9]) provided specific teachings on questions (such as in Acts 15), the leadership of one congregation was not over another congregation.

Unfortunately, men decided it was a good idea to have group-elder meetings (starting in the 2nd century).  The idea (which seems like a good one) was to have the elders of different congregations get together and visit about problems and issues.  Unfortunately, that got out of hand and by the 3rd century you begin to have super-elders.  This being one "elder" over several congregations or one "chief" elder over the other elders in a single congregation.  By the 4th century, you have all manners of levels within what was now the "Catholic" church and these meetings to discuss problems and issues became meeting where the "church elders" or the "church fathers" would dictate the answer for all of the congregations.  And of course that led to the Pope, the priests, the nuns and etc.

Scripturally, however, that's not what Christ or God put into place.  So, "32 churches" in one congregation is a bit of a stretch for what Christ and God want, and that leads to the "Bishop" and group of elders over the 32 congregations, etc.

I don't need to explain the problems with man-made organizations - you can see that for yourself.  I will say that the initial thought of these structures were "innocent".  I truly believe it was done because the leaders thought it would be better for the congregations.  But that's not God's way, and when we see to where it led we can see why God had a different plan.

"Legalistic" is generally a term used for leadership or people who follow rules that I don't like :).  In other words, we use "legalistic" as a negative word.  However, let me tell you that God is *very* legalistic.  He has commands for everyone and if you do not follow those commands you are lost.  Thankfully, He also has grace and mercy.  If we follow His commands to partake of the cleansing from Christ, then we obtain that protection from Christ and are considered "holy" by God when we really aren't.  But I can assure you that God is legalistic.

His law is right there in front of us.  It's not difficult to understand, although many would try to tell us it is.  It's really pretty simple.  We have the commands for obtain the protection from Christ (repentance, confession, baptism and then a continued walk in the light).  Then we have the commands for walking in the light (e.g., no murder, homosexuality, lust, adultery, gossip, greed, stealing, gluttony.  Then teach others, honor and glorify God in all things, be a active part of the body or church of Christ, and really only a handful of other commands).  1 John 5 tells us that His commands are not burdensome.  (But somehow we find a way to think they are and we sin.)

So, when we read the Bible and see what it teaches and then we compare that teaching to what our elders and leaders are saying, we have an obligation to first discuss it with our leaders/elders and then if there's obviously error being taught, is it where you want to participate as a member of the Body?

I will briefly say that many texts in the Scriptures should be taken literally, but not all.  And all should be taken within context.  Sometimes the context is within the whole book or letter; sometimes its within just a paragraph.

You didn't ask, but I guess I feel obliged to give my definition of a place to worship (you can take it or leave it).  I base it all on my understanding of the first century organization of the Body and how it Scripturally was set up and what they did in their worship.  They were separate and apart from any other congregation.  They met at least once a week on the Lord's Day.  They sang, they prayed, they read Scripture, they partook of the Lord's Supper, they gave and they had a presentation.  It appears they met other days of the week, but the Lord's Day was their day of worship.  They taught that to be a member of the Lord's Body/church, you had to repent, confess, be baptized and live your life, growing all the time, in a spiritual, holy manner.  They helped one another when they were in spiritual and physical need.  They enjoyed one another's company.  They helped other congregations, missionaries and people in need.  They taught others about Christ and everything they knew.

People often ask me, "why to you go to such-and-such church?" or "why do you believe that baptism is required?"  I answer the same the way, namely, "I want to go to heaven.  When I read the Bible, I can easily see what the church looked like and I think this church looks close to a first century church and is trying to stay that way.  I read that there are many things necessary for salvation.  If I want to go to heaven and I don't try to rationalize, I see baptism as a necessary step that "washing away my sins", provides "forgiveness of sin" and provides the "gift of the Holy Spirit".

I consider myself a smart guy, but I consider God smarter.  It seems to me that really smart people don't try to impress you with their knowledge, they try to teach you what they know in as simple terms as necessary for you to learn.  God did that.  He laid it out simply, and I simply have to follow it.  I can try to convolute it, I can try to change it to a "better way" (like they group elders), but God laid it out simply.

Anyway, probably more than you wanted, but again, I hope this helps.