Who Pays the Tithe of a Tithe?

It's Feast season again. Do you have "Feast fever" yet? Ready to go on the biggest vacation of the year? Get ready for some go karting, 'cause you know the track is gonna be right down the road from your hotel. Hopefully this year the big-name Ministers will notice you and say hi when you walk into the restaurant where they are segregated off by themselves.

Yes, I tease a little in there. Tell me those things aren't based in fact, though! You've experienced those things at least once. 

Today, I would like to talk about something else you've likely experienced - tithing. Specifically, tithe of a tithe. I was reading No2HWA's article over at Banned! titled "It's Tithe of the Tithe Time! Get Out Those Checkbooks!" and I just had to chime in. I may be mistaken here, but I don't think tithe of a tithe has ever been forced through the patended As Bereans Did Gauntlet. This oversight ends today.

For people who are new here and not from an Armstrongist background, I will briefly explain.
In Armstrongism, two of the many things that are taught as doctrinal truths are tithing and observing Old Covenant holy days rather than mainstream holidays. One of those festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles, is particularly central in the year because it is basically a week-long Christmas and a vacation wrapped in one. To pay for it, the church requires an entire tithe to be set aside - with tithe defined as 10% of your gross income. You might say 10% isn't so bad, but this is a tithe in addition to the normal tithe. In other words, you've already paid 10% of your income to the church and this is a second 10% set aside for going to the Feast of Tabernacles. It's called the "Festival Tithe".

There is a peculiar tradition in Armstrongism that started decades ago, called "tithe of a tithe". This is where you take 10% of your festival tithe and you give it to the church. Because apparently the first tithe wasn't enough. Why? Well, the explanation is rather benevolent. Your generous and mandatory donation of the tithe of a tithe is used to pay for the rented facilities and to help people who cannot otherwise afford to attend the Feast of Tabernacles. At least some of it is. Usually. Why couldn't they just do that with the first tithe? Well, they could have, but instead they probably used it to build a college auditorium.

TITHING - YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG AGAIN

What is their biblical justification for this tithe of a tithe?

(NUM. 18: 25-26) 25 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 26 “Speak thus to the Levites, and say to them: ‘When you take from the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them as your inheritance, then you shall offer up a heave offering of it to the Lord, a tenth of the tithe.

See? Tithe of a tithe! We accept Cash App.

But hold on just a second here. Didn't I just read that the Levites were supposed to pay this tithe? “Speak thus to the Levites, and say to them," it says. That's the law! It doesn't say, "Speak to the congregation, and say to them."

In order to get tithing in the first place, let alone tithe of a tithe, there had to be a change in the unchangeable law. Armstrongist Church of God splinters make a very large deal out of changing the law. "You can't do it!" they exclaim passionately. Usually, they are talking about changing the Sabbath to Sunday.
I could pull quotes to demonstrate this from any of a hundred thousand places, but I just so happen to have been prepping another post for the past couple weeks. I will pull from there out of convenience. In that post, I quote from a publication on the United Church of God's Beyond Today site by one Robert Berendt. In it, he says this (about changing the Sabbath to Sunday):

"Can we humans discard or change that which God wrote?"
"Can we add to the laws or take away portions? I think not!"
-Robert Berendt, "Written By The Finger of God", Beyond Today, 2001

No? We can't??
Then why was it done here?!

There are no Levites anymore. The law says tithes go to Levites. That is the law. No one can change that.

This is all about tithing, no? Who paid tithes? Everyone in Israel paid them, except for the tribe of Levi. Who received the tithes? The tribe of Levi. Why? Because they were dedicated to being priests and tithes were their source of income.
But that's not how it's done in the "nobody can change the law" churches of Armstrongism.
Who pays tithes? The whole church, except the Ministry. Who receives the tithes? The Ministry. Why? Because the Ministers are dedicated to being Ministers and that is their source of income.

So, the Ministers are in the place of the Levites. But you can't change Levite to Minister. That's a change in the law.

We have other articles on how there are no Levites in the New Covenant, and tithing is a ceremonial heave offering not a moral law, and there is no justification for tithing in Christianity, and tithing wasn't of money in the first place, plus it was not 10% but one-in-ten. For more, read our article "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong", and I especially recommend "Not All That Glitters".
I don't want to get into those details here, though.

WAIT - WHO PAYS?

But changing Levite into Minister is not the only change. The tithe of a tithe was supposed to be paid by the Levites to the Aaronic high priests:

(NUM. 18: 28-31) 28 Thus you shall also offer a heave offering to the Lord from all your tithes which you receive from the children of Israel, and you shall give the Lord’s heave offering from it to Aaron the priest. 29 Of all your gifts you shall offer up every heave offering due to the Lord, from all the best of them, the consecrated part of them.’ 30 Therefore you shall say to them: ‘When you have lifted up the best of it, then the rest shall be accounted to the Levites as the produce of the threshing floor and as the produce of the winepress. 31 You may eat it in any place, you and your households, for it is your reward for your work in the tabernacle of meeting.

Who paid tithe of a tithe? The Levites - it was a tenth of the one tithe they already received. Who received tithe of a tithe? The Aaronic Priests. Why? Because they serve in the tabernacle of meeting.
That's the law!

What did we just read earlier?

"Can we humans discard or change that which God wrote?"
"Can we add to the laws or take away portions? I think not!"

Then why was it done again here?!

If the Ministry wants to pretend to be Levites, wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the Ministers should be the ones paying tithe of a tithe? Why are you, Mr. or Ms. Average Churchgoer, asked to pay the tithe of a tithe? Are you a Minister? Are they Levites? No.

DEPOSITED IN WRONG ACCOUNT

And I want you to notice a third thing.
The tithe of a tithe had nothing to do with funding the Feast of Tabernacles!

They change the law a third time. What did Numbers 18 say? The Aaronic priests received the tithe of a tithe as a reward for their work in the tabernacle. That's in the tabernacle, not at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Does the Ministry work in the Tabernacle of Meeting? No! There is no Tabernacle of Meeting or Aaronic Priesthood today. So, why does the Ministry get to collect it and use it for unauthorized purposes?

And I want you to notice a fourth thing.
The tithe of a tithe, which tithe did it come from - the first, or the second? The first! (Remember how Armstrongism teaches two tithes.)

If your Minister expects you to pay tithe of a tithe from your second tithe, he clearly did not read Numbers 18. The tithe of a tithe came from the first tithe, the one that the Levites received. It did not come from any funds set aside by regular Israelites to attend the Feast.

Don't even get me started on the requirement for travel "Three Times in the Year". It's not just once. It's three! Everyone is getting "Feast Fever" because of this annual vacation coming up, but I bet no one is pressing their church to explain the other two times in the year they were supposed to travel but didn't.

Yet again, the unchanging law has been changed. So much for Robert Berendt's comments! Apparently "you can't change the law" only counts when it's a change from Saturday to Sunday. Other than that, you can change the law all you like.

CONCLUSION

The unchanging law has to be changed in many ways to arrive at the Armstrongist tithing system. Today we saw these four changes:

• The Ministry are not Levites, so they shouldn't be collecting tithes to begin with.
• The tithe of a tithe was supposed to be paid by the Levites, not the average Israelite.
• The tithe of a tithe was supposed to fund the Aaronic Priests for their service in the tabernacle. It was not supposed to fund the Feast of Tabernacles.
• The tithe of a tithe did not come from second tithe.

I probably could come up with more, but this was a quick article I whipped up in short order. I don't want to take forever writing it.

The next time your church reaches out to you to tug on your heart strings and get you to pay them more tithes, you have my permission to quote Numbers 18 and ask your Minister why he isn't paying his due. If they want to ask you for a freewill money donation, that's one thing. But if they want to call it tithing, and point you at tithe of a tithe, you quote Mr. Berendt up there and then put away your checkbooks!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Banished Or Saved From Eden?

(GEN. 3: 22-24) 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

When I was growing up, I was told all about "The Fall" of man and how Adam and Eve sinned and that made God so very angry. So, then God blew His top and banished them from Eden and prevented anyone from ever returning by a scary angel who would straight up end them if they got too close. That's how it's usually told.
I've heard several times recently about a very different way to understand this. I wanted to share it with you.

We have already written here about the first part of verse 22. Seems the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil has similarities to the Old Covenant and its laws. Read our post "Two Trees - Two Covenants" for more. But it's the second half of verse 22 that sets the stage for today's idea. "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

How we are taught to understand that is, "You sinned, and now because you are a filthy sinner I am going to punish you by banning you from eternal life." Here is where God starts sounding like Bill Burr. "You coulda had it! You coulda had eternal life, Adam and Eve! But no! You had ONE job! One job! And you blew it! Now, no Tree of Life for anybody!"

Is that completely wrong? I donno. The real question is - is that the best way to understand this?

What if ----
God was not banishing mankind from Eden out of anger for our sin, but saving mankind from Eden out of love..?

Here mankind stands, in some condition we were never intended to be in. There was something about that Tree of Knowledge, whatever it was that tree represented, that we were never intended to have.

(GEN. 3: 4-6) 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

The word translated wisdom, by the way, is sakal, Strong's H7919, and it can mean any range of ideas from knowledge to skill to intelligence to wisdom. It doesn't necessarily have to mean wisdom. When the serpent explains the results of eating, he doesn't emphasize wisdom but rather knowledge. So, taking this action would result in mankind obtaining some sort of understanding that we had previously lacked. Understanding which definitely revolves around the difference between what is good and what is evil. This is an attribute which, according to verse 5, it seems spirit beings already possessed.
The word translated God is elohim, but elohim can mean any disembodied being. Because of that, you have to pay very close attention to the context to know when elohim applies only to God. The problem in verse 5 is there are no context indicators right there. This could be God, but it could be spirit beings in general. So, it is best to err on the side of generality. It could just as easily have been translated, "you will become like the angels, knowing good and evil." Several versions say, "you will become as gods".

Side note for Ron Weinland fans out there --
Weinland used to go around saying Yahweh was God's first name and Elohim is His last name, a family name. Negative. That is absolutely false. Elohim is not a proper noun. Elohim can mean any disembodied being. It can be as generic as the phrase spirit being. Take II Chronicles 2: 5 just for one example.
(II CHR. 2: 5) The temple I am going to build will be great, because our God is greater than all other gods.
Both of those instances, "God" and "gods", are the same word elohim. Clearly, "all other gods" indicates foreign gods. Is Baal in the family of Elohim?
When Genesis says "Yahweh elohim" it doesn't mean elohim is the family name, it means this particular elohim is Yahweh. The unique Yahweh elohim, as opposed to a generic elohim spirit being.
This is for another day. Back to the point.

As a recap - humanity has taken some action that has imparted upon us our very own ability to discern right from wrong, apparently something spirit beings are capable of. This is the one thing God instructed us not to do. There is something about this which is very, very bad for us. God was clear that this course of action would lead us to our eternal deaths. And then this happens:

(GEN. 3: 22) And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

"He must not be allowed"? Why not?

What is it about the combination of the knowledge of good and evil and eternal life that God could not allow?
There is no obvious answer, but I think the answer is implied.

Here is the thought I'm on about today, and the different understanding I've heard several times recently:
The reason we had to be prevented from the Tree of Life is because He loves us and desired to save us from what we'd done, and eternal life would prevent that salvation.

It's not so much that God furiously banished us from the Garden and the Tree of Life, but that He protected us from the Garden and the Tree of Life. He protected us from making a terrible situation far worse by making it permanent. It's not that God could not abide, but that God needed to act quickly to stop us from making ourselves unsalvageable. He wasn't furious, per se, He was loving.

The combination of knowledge of good and evil and eternal life would indeed make us just like the spirit beings that perhaps we call demons or devils - who sin but cannot be salvaged. Why can they not be salvaged? Because the elohim cannot die. What does death have to do with it? Well, how did Jesus save us? Through His own death. If we cannot die, then Jesus cannot become one of us and, as one of us, die for all of us. That Tree of Life would prevent God's plan of redemption for mankind by preventing death - the means through which redemption could come. Having no way to redeem us from our own folly would result in us having no other destiny except that which will befall Satan. At this point, we don't like death, but we need it.

So, we must ask ourselves - did God curse us with death, or is death some sort of backhanded blessing? Or both?

God's hand was forced. He had to boot us from the Garden for our own good. He placed that scary cherub there with the flaming sword to prevent us from ever entering there again.

...or did He?

Now that we see the banishment from Eden in a slightly different light, perhaps we can see that cherub with the flaming sword in a different light.

Maybe that spirit being is not only guarding the Tree of Life from us, but guarding us from it. Clearly, that Tree which should give us life has become our greatest threat. What was once paradise is now the death of hope. (Another "Good Turnabout"?) If the serpent really wanted to end us for all time, he would have rushed Eve to that tree and told her to eat it, too. (Good thing he didn't know the plan of salvation, or he would have.) I bet he thought it was doubly funny when we were banned from the Tree of Life, not knowing it was to our benefit.
And maybe, just maybe, the angel was also preserving that Tree for the time when we are ready for it. In a time after Jesus died for us, and that terrible mistake in the garden was undone. In a time when there was no threat of permanent Fall because we have entered a condition of permanent salvation.

(REV. 22: 1-3) Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse.

Because of death, Jesus' death, we can be made ready for the Tree of Life. There is no angel with a fiery sword anymore. The Tree of Life isn't just there within our reach, it's on Main Street. And the thing bears twelve crops of fruit, one for each month! It invites us in. That is a poetic way of saying EAT IT! Gorge yourself on it. Don't just have life, have A LOT OF LIFE!

Were we banished from Eden, or were we saved from it? Saved until a time when we were ready for it? This kind of question only comes up if you're looking at it from the perspective of the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Hopefully this different way to view "The Fall" gives you something positive to think about today.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************