Third Tithe

If you are here to read an article on third tithe, chances are you are from an Armstrongist church or you have somehow come in contact with one. For those unfamiliar with Armstrongism, they preach mandatory tithing. As Bereans Did has multiple articles on tithing (see our Categories page). Those articles compare and contrast what the Bible says and what ancient Israel did versus what the Armstrongist splinter churches practice currently. That's what we do here.
Today, I want to look at that third tithe. We will focus on the two main proof-texts used, from Deuteronomy 14 and 26. We are going to put the third tithe through the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet. Will it survive?

But before we begin, let's get something straight....

Tithing, as a system, was unique to the Old Covenant. Regardless of what someone might tell you about Abraham and Jacob tithing, there was no law for them (or us). What Abraham and Jacob did and what the Old Covenant law says to do are not the same. For example, Abraham gave a tenth of war spoils (then gave the rest away) whereas in Israel spoils were either not tithed at all or they were given at a far lower fraction than tenth. And Jacob negotiated his tithe as a reciprocity for God blessing him first. In Israel, it was non-negotiable. Just because Abraham and Jacob did a thing does not mean we must do that thing, else we would all be offering burnt sacrifices. Trying to bind tithing on us by referencing the priesthood of Melchizedek is also a dead end for the same reasons. Melchizedek accepted war spoils from Abraham. There is no mention of any other tithe there. No law. No precedent. No further examples. To say, "Jesus is in the order or Melchizedek," cannot bind anyone to anything beyond what the story of Melchizedek tells us. Melchizedek was not a priest of the Old Covenant. What Israel did with spoils and funding the priesthood when they left Egypt and what Israel did a century later are not the same. That is simply a fact. My point in this is - trying to shoehorn an Old Covenant law into the New Covenant will fail.
I am not a proponent of required tithing in the New Covenant era. I am opposed to any taking of law from the Old Covenant and by fiat moving it forward into the New Covenant (see our article "Confusing the Covenants"). Does tithing set a decent example of giving? Only when properly understood! Tithes were not gifts, they were mandatory, and accompanied with an oath. The system today is freewill giving. In the early church, people would sell extra land and items and give it all to the church. That's more than a tenth. And Peter once said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you". That's giving of a completely different sort. The Lord loves a generous giver.

I know some out there might think I am only here to do anything and everything I can to trash the idea of third tithe. I promise you that is not the case. That is not how the As Bereans Did patented gauntlet works. I am only interested in investigating the issue from the whole and best evidence I can find without insisting on a particular conclusion. In the absence of forcing a conclusion because I demand that conclusion, things turn out the way they do on their own. If it's valid then it's valid, and if not then not. The truth can take care of itself. But this I will say - if you are not prepared to challenge, or even change, your ideas, or if you search only to be affirmed, As Bereans Did articles aren't going to be very valuable to you.

BASICS

Tithing is one of the main pillars of Herbert Armstrong's doctrine. I think there are five main pillars in the system, mostly from the Old Covenant:

• Weekly seventh-day Sabbath
• Seven annual holy days
• Tithing (10% on money income) x3
• Clean/unclean meats
• End-times prophecy

See how tithing is multiplied by three there? Traditionally, Armstrongism recognizes three tithes. Yes, 30%, all off the gross. The first tithe goes to the church, the second is retained and set aside to fund the annual holy days (actually, just the Feast of Tabernacles), and the third goes to the church to assist needy church members (which is not always how it is used).

The third tithe only happens every third year. So, it's not like every year they are paying 30% of their income. In no year is the amount ever 10%, but in the third year, all total, the amount coughed up can be well in excess of 30%.

There is at least one notable splinter church, the United Church of God, who now rejects third tithe. But overall, that's how things go in broad strokes.

You can imagine what losing 30%+ of your income would do to a family. Some endure extreme poverty every third year. Canned beans have been a staple meal for some families. The alternative is simply not to pay that third tithe. Some few do get an extraordinary dispensation to skip third tithe, as this tithe was supposed to go to the poor not come from them. But to discourage people from seeking an out from the third tithe, a stream of stories are released telling tales of the unexpected blessings one receives by giving the third tithe. "You cannot outgive God," is frequently repeated. I personally attended a COG splinter church where one man would talk about blessings during the third tithe year and at the same time another man would talk about wearing shoes with holes during third tithe year. As a young man with very little to my name, I decided to skip third tithe. I felt pretty blessed by that. In addition, it was frequently said that since the third tithe is for the poor, and since most societies have a social safety net (e.g., Welfare and Social Security in the U.S.), then the third tithe was not necessary. I tend to agree with that, but if the entire reason why we're talking about this in the first place is "God's law" then how can you just bypass it?

If so many obvious blessings, then why so many attempts to circumvent it? If it was required in the unchanging law, then why try to get out from under it via social safety nets? If it was intended to go to the poor, then why require it of the poor? And why did it not actually go to the poor, all of it? It was well known that third tithe was not actually exclusively employed to assist to members in need. (That is not to say the churches did not do anything for their own poor members, but members were offered some form of assistance if requested, which was sometimes required to be paid back, rather than being handed a fair share of the third tithe.)

JEWISH PRACTICE

When talking about the Old Testament it is only natural to ask, do the Jews recognize third tithe? Yes! ...and no.

There is evidence in Rabbinical literature and some ancient sources like Josephus and Philo to support the notion of three tithes. I will start with the modern Jews and get to the ancient ones in a bit.
This from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Tithes:

"...there were three kinds of tithes: (1) that given to the Levites as stated in Num. xviii. 21 et seq., and termed "the first tithe" ("ma'aser rishon"); (2) the tithe which was to be taken to Jerusalem and there consumed by the landowner and his family, and which was termed "the second tithe" ("ma'aser sheni"), it being taken from what remained after the first tithe had been appropriated; and (3) that given to the poor ("ma'aser 'ani"). Therefore two tithes were to be taken every year except in the seventh year: Nos. 1 and 2 in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years; Nos. 1 and 3 in the third and sixth years."
- Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher. (2021). "Tithe". Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14408-tithe.

To summarize, the Jews recognize three tithes but in any given year only two were taken. 

Notice the second and third tithes are the same tithe. Hence why I say yes and no. The difference is in how it is used. For two years it is taken on the three annual pilgrimage festivals to Jerusalem to be enjoyed by the one who gave it, and for one year it was collected locally and given to the local poor and the Levite.

One additional thing to bring to your attention here: there was no tithe at all in the seventh year. How can this be? Because of the Land Sabbath (EXO. 23: 10-11; LEV. 1-7, 20-22). Since tithing was primarily of the land, and because certain verses were very specific about the tithe coming from grains, then there could be no tithe in the seventh year. Granted, the tithe of the sixth year would be more. Still, all sources that I could find agree that there was no tithe at all in the seventh year, the Year of Release. Why there would be no tithe on items like cattle or fruit trees, neither of which stop in the seventh year, is unknown to me at this time. Some sources seem to suggest they did not stop, others say there was no tithe in the seventh year because it was the Year of Release.

One last thing to bring to your attention here: the tithes are not all equal in size. They are not all taken from the gross total. The first tithe was taken off the top, then the second/third tithe from what was left over. This effectively makes the second/third tithe 1/10th smaller than the one before it. Tithes were not 10% of the gross total, but 1/10th of the increase you had before you. This forces each tithe to be smaller than the previous. (See our article "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong" for more.)

Armstrongism would be challenged by this arrangement, since the second tithe is understood as the primary means of funding the Feast of Tabernacles, and since they recognize no seventh year break, and since all tithes are taken as 10% of the entire income as a whole. How can there be a Feast without funding? (Bear in mind the unchanging law says to go three times a year, not just once.) And how can there be a Millionaire's Row or the Tsar's gold flatware or $2,500 bottles of Remy Martin Louis XIII cognac in the special baccarat decanter or television shows or ads in the Reader's Digest without a constant stream of money, money, and more money? Why become a false prophet in the first place if not to soak sheep of their money?

So, we have a dilemma - Jews or Armstrong? We need more evidence to help us decide. The two places in the Bible to get that evidence are Deuteronomy 14: 28-29 and 26: 12.

DEUTERONOMY 14

Let's go to Deuteronomy 14, but let's start in verse 22.

(DEU. 14: 22-23) 22 You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.

Anyone from the Armstrongist system will recognize these verses. "They describe the second tithe." These verses are seen as the tithe for funding the Feast of Tabernacles, because it says this tithe is taken to "the place where the Lord places His name" (which actually refers to where the Holy of Holies was kept, but Armstrongism interprets it as meaning any and all cities where the church chooses to host a Feast of Tabernacles site).

You might be thinking I've started too soon, in the wrong section. I came here for a reason. A textual reason.

The lack of any clear thought-break between verses 27 and 28 creates some options:
1) Is 14: 28 an unbroken continuation of the prior section that starts in verse 22, thus taking from second tithe?
2) Or, does 14: 28 start a completely new idea but take from the first tithe?
3) Or, does 14: 28 start a completely new idea that institutes a separate third tithe?
All options have their supporters and their complications.

1) Second Tithe

If you side with verse 28 being an unbroken continuation, that means the tithe mentioned in verse 28 is one and the same as the tithe mentioned in verse 22. In other words, the second tithe and the third are the same tithe. This option damages both second and third tithes.

It damages the second because in that year the tithe was not to go to "the place where the Lord places His name" but it was to be stored up and given to the local Levite, the poor, and the needy. This means every third year the second tithe was not used for funding holy days. It became a local fund instead.

(DEU. 14: 28) At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates.

This damages the third tithe because there is no distinct third tithe here at all. The second tithe becomes the third.

You should know, this appears to be the option the Jews go with. This from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Tithes:

"Every third year the tithes were not to be carried to the city of the Temple, but were to be stored at home ("within thy gates"), and "the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow" were to "eat and be satisfied" (ib. verse 29). It is to be concluded that, the seventh year being a Sabbatical year and no tithing being permissible therein, the tithe of the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of every cycle of seven years had to be brought to the Temple and eaten by the landowner and his family, while the tithe of the third and sixth years was to be left at home for the poor."
- Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher. (2021). "Tithe". Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14408-tithe.

A big difference exists between how the Jews view the second tithe and how Armstrongists view it. Armstrongists view it as a means to pay for the Feast of Tabernacles. Jews view it not as a means to pay for the holy days but as a bonus to be enjoyed at the holy days. The funding was entirely separate.

The biggest fault in this option is that all males still needed to go to "the place where the Lord places His name" three times each year, "and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed" (DEU. 16: 16).

2) New Idea Taking From First Tithe

Some people feel verse 28 starts a completely new idea, but it does not institute a new tithe, rather it gives modified instructions for the first tithe. This is similar to option 1. Where the Jews see the third and second tithes as being the same, some people feel the third and first tithes are the same. This option complicates the first tithe and damages the third tithe.

This complicates the first tithe because these tithes always went to the Levites. If you read DEU. 14: 29, you can see the first group mentioned to whom this third tithe was given is the Levite. Why mention the tithe should go to the Levite if the tithe already went to the Levite? Then again, the way the Bible is written, it almost makes sense. God is big on details like this. So, if the tithe was for the Levite normally but for the Levite and the poor in the third year, mentioning the Levite does fit the pattern of how the Bible is worded elsewhere.
Of course, this would mean the Levites and the Aaronic Priests lived on less in the third year. I do not find this to be a deal breaker because no matter what you do - add a tithe or modify an existing tithe - someone is going to live on less.

This damages the third tithe because there is no distinct third tithe here at all. The first tithe becomes the third.

The biggest fault in this option is the lack of historical support. I can find nothing in modern or ancient Jewish literature to support this option. I can't imagine any Levites would be in favor of this.

3) New Idea Creating A Third Tithe

Some people feel verse 28 starts a completely new idea and creates a distinct tithe in the third year. This does not complicate the first or the second tithes at all. It does not make the Levites live with less, in fact it appears to offer them even more than normal because now they get the entire first tithe and part of the third. We just need to find some support for this option.

Josephus actually writes about tithes in his book "Antiquities of the Jews":

"(22) Besides those two tithes, which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring every third year a third tithe to be distributed to those that want; (23) to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", book IV, chapter 8, verse 22-23, from Early Jewish Writings https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant4.html.

Isn't that odd now? Josephus clearly supports option 3 even though the modern Jewish Encyclopedia sides with option 1. I guess it's true what they say - where there are two Jews there are three opinions.

Do we have any other evidence from antiquity? Yes. Evidence comes to us from the apocryphal book of Tobit.

(TOB. 6: 8a) But every third year, I would give a third tithe to widows and orphans and to foreigners living among my people, and we would eat the festival meal together.

Armstrongists usually rail against the apocryphal books, calling them all forms of negativity. I bet they aren't doing that right now. Say what you will about Tobit, it is without a doubt an old writing. In this case, old equals good.

Additionally, Josephus and Tobit make it clear the three tithes were distinct from other requirements such as sacrificing the first fruits of harvest and cattle. The third year must have been quite the leap of faith!

The biggest fault in this option is ... well, there is no particular fault. It's pretty sound.

I am forced to side with option 3! The best candidate of the three options is #3: there is a distinct third tithe in the Old Covenant. Herbert Armstrong was actually right.
Bet you didn't see THAT coming, did ya?

But, we aren't quite done yet. Let's go to Deuteronomy 26.

DEUTERONOMY 26

(DEU. 26: 12a) When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the third year—the year of tithing...

Even though the case for a third tithe is solid by this point, I wanted to come here anyway to look at a certain detail.
See verse 12 there, how it says, "in the third year"? Contrast that with Deu. 14: 28 where it says, "At the end of every third year". Some people who simply abandon Jewish history and attempt to define these things on their own get confused over them. Why? Why reinvent the wheel on a point like this? They aren't tithing according to what the laws says anyway, so why get hung up on a detail like this? Yet, alas, the weeds are too tempting a place to play for some.

There is quite a bit of consensus that "in" and "at the end of" mean the same thing. It had to be the same thing since all the people acted all together. What was that time? It depends on what was tithed. Different dates were necessary since the items tithed upon cannot all be stored up for the same length of time without rotting.

From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Temple Scroll 11Q19 [p.166 of that link] mentions two dates: the Day of Firstfruits (which happens after Passover day during Unleavened Bread) and the 3rd of Av (Day of New Wine). It is unclear if there were other dates.
The Mishnah, on the other hand, lists three different dates to gather tithable items. Grain, wine, oil, and vegetables were the 1st of Tishri. Fruit trees were the 15th of Shavat. Cattle were not part of the third tithe but their day was 1st of Elul.

So, you see, it depends.

Is this a huge point to inspect? No. But I have read many articles recently and there seems to be confusion on this point. I find it perplexing that so many who bind themselves to Old Covenant law seem to be comfortable with a "make it up as you go along" approach to things. Throwing away clear Bible instruction (like what to tithe on and to whom) then striving against unclear instruction (like when the year of tithing begins and ends) seems to me to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

THE THIRD YEAR

There is one final detail I want to bring up. When the bible says "third year" what does it mean?

The nation of Israel worked altogether as one in cycles. There was a weekly cycle of seven days. There was a Pentecost cycle of seven weeks. There was an annual cycle of seven years. And there was a Jubilee cycle of 7x7 (49) years. These cycles were not independent per each citizen of Israel, they were communal. Everyone followed the same cycle at the same time. In Armstrongism, tithing is personal. Each person independently tithes 20% for two years then 30% on the third year, based on when they were baptized. That is not how it went in Israel. It was communal.

All Israel experienced at one and the same time an event the Bible calls "the year of tithing" (DEU. 26: 12a). The question is: was this only year 3 out of 7, or was it years 3 and 6 out of 7? As with everything else in this life, you can find articles supporting either option. When I first started researching for this post I used DuckDuckGo to search for "year of tithing" and its AI assistant told me it's year 3 out of 7. The most reliable evidence I've found since, however, sides with years 3 and 6 out of 7. Lesson: take AI with a big grain of salt.

But I want you to be aware of something here. Saying "years 3 and 6 out of 7" is not the same as saying "every third year". Why not? Because Israel was in a seven-year cycle. After year seven, it resets. I will explain.

Ancient Israel worked on a cycle of seven years. That is 1 through 7, then 1 through 7, then 1 through 7, repeatedly. When we say "every third year" it can be misunderstood as 1 through 3, then 1 through 3, then 1 through 3, repeatedly. The difference comes crashing in at year 9. In a 7-year cycle, year 9 is not a third tithe year. In an "every third year" cycle, year 9 is a third tithe year.

Perhaps this table will make it easier to visualize:

Year #	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
7-Year	1	2	third tithe	4	5	third tithe	NO tithe	1	2	third tithe
3-Year	1	2	third tithe	1	2	third tithe	1	2	third tithe	1

See there? In year seven, there should be no tithe at all. In year eight, the 7-year cycle begins again. You will not have a third tithe again until year ten. There is a three-year break from third tithe in there because the system resets.
That is not the same as how an "every third year" cycle works. Armstrongism employs an "every third year" cycle. This is not Biblical!

CONCLUSION

Today we put the third tithe through the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet and ... it survived!!

Turns out the oldest sources I could find - Josephus and Tobit - are all in on the idea. This means that anciently (at least during the Second Temple period) Israel had three distinct tithes.
This is a surprising turn of events. And for anyone of an Armstrongist bent, hopefully this demonstrates the patented gauntlet is aligned true neutral.

That doesn't mean I have nothing to criticize Armstrongism for.

The system claims to demand tithes because of the law. "The law! The law! God's unchanging law!" Bear in mind Armstrongism makes many claims of following the eternal law, but frequently changes or ignores the law.
For example, the law says tithing is a 1/10 not 10%, of the increase not the total gross, and of field, orchard, garden, and flock not money income, but they ignore that. Or, when the law says three tithes not just two, but they ignore that. Or, when the law says there are three pilgrimage holy days not just one, but they changed that. Or, when the law says to whom the tithe should go but the tithe never goes to a Levite because they changed that. Or, when the law says to tithe and give the entire tithe to the needy, but they mostly ignore that. Or, when the law says a tithe-of-a-tithe is to be paid by the Levites to the Aaronic Priests, not by the people in the seats to the Ministry, but they changed that. Or, when the law says to let the land rest every seventh year, which means there can be no tithe that year, but that is entirely ignored. Armstrongism doesn't strictly adhere to any of these laws, just to name a few.
"The law! The law! ...Just not that law."

Why do we tithe? Because the unchanging law says so. But the unchanging law says exactly how to tithe. That law has changed; ignore it.

See?

And, once again I feel compelled to remind you, beloved of God, none of these Old Covenant laws apply in the New Covenant anyway. Laws do not migrate from contract to contract. And none of these laws applied to Gentiles. Gentiles were strangers to that Covenant. Gentiles need not become Jews in order to be Christians.
The New Covenant runs on freewill giving not compulsory tithing. If you opt to tithe for your giving, then tithe, but if you opt not to, then don't let anyone guilt you into tithing. Those who tell you we must all tithe are not tithing in the manner the law demands anyhow. The next time you are told you must tithe, ask if you can pay in tomatoes. I bet that doesn't go over well.

If tithe laws do not apply to us, is there any benefit in them for us? Yes!
At the outset of this article, I said this, "Does tithing set a decent example of giving? Only when properly understood!" A proper understanding is critical. The law was not written to us but it was written for our benefit and edification. Imagine you are sitting on a park bench listening to two people have an interesting conversation. Were they talking to you? No. But can you still benefit? Yes! The laws of tithing taught Israel to depend on God, to thank God, and to be generous to others. Those principles are still good! They are good for us because of the divine principal of Love rather than the Old Covenant law. Though these laws do not apply to us directly, we can still learn their lessons. Let your contemplation of tithe law bear the fruits of faith, thankfulness, and generosity. Faith and Love! It's our calling.

God bless you in this, dear reader!

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

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

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

Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong

I was recently minding my own business, flipping channels on the telly one rainy Sunday morning, when I came across a church program from a local Protestant group in my area. This group is not affiliated with Armstrongism at all. They are one of those "intro to Christianity" seeker-sensitive churches, with the stage and the band and the light, airy messages peppered with buzz-phrases like "lean in". Don't get me wrong, it's a decent place. They have plenty of community outreach programs and genuinely try to plant the seeds of the gospel in people's hearts. It is difficult finding a balance between evangelizing and making disciples. It almost requires two different churches in one. Their messages may be light and airy, but they do not compromise on solid principles even while they are very patient with people who aren't there yet. That's why I figured I would linger a while and hear what the young gentleman on my screen had to say.

His message was about ... you know, it's odd, but I don't really remember what his message was about. It was something I thought was pretty good. Unfortunately for me, the message was lost when he mentioned one of my personal pet peeves - tithing.

I thought it quite unusual to hear a Protestant mentioning tithing. Especially one from a seeker-sensitive group.

I understand the economics of running a church. They cost a lot of money! You can imagine in our current economic climate, things only get more and more expensive. Tithing is a tempting option. Compelling people to hand over 10% of their income is a more reliable system than depending on freewill gifts.

But there is a serious flaw in this entire plan. For some reason, people seem to think tithing was a system of 10%. What if I told you that is incorrect.

Tithing was not 10%. It was one-in-ten.

HOW TITHING ACTUALLY WORKED

What is the difference, you ask? Let me explain.

Originally, ancient Israel was an agrarian society. All that means is most of the nation's wealth was generated in a field somewhere. That is why you will only see tithes of the farm, field, orchard, or flock. That is why you hear of the Pharisees tithing of mint, anise, and cumin (DEU. 14: 22). Note: the church leaders tithed. You will not find a verse where tithes came from money. Or fish, for that matter. You can turn a tithe into money in order to make it easier to transport, but it was not money originally. (Does your Minister accept tomatoes?)

Some did have "income" as we understand it, because there were tradesmen and specialists in that agrarian society. Somebody had to cut stone and build houses and smith bronze and craft the clay and fletch arrows, and etc. That tent aint gonna weave itself! Yet, you never see a verse commanding them to tithe on their pay. It is implied that money income was donated, but it is never directly commanded that money income was tithed. Some forms of income simply were not tithed upon.

So, we are back to tithing on farm, field, orchard, or flock. Here, the one-in-ten system becomes necessary. To explain how the one-in-ten tithing system worked, let us imagine some shepherds.

Once a year, the shepherds would all gather in their area to have their flocks counted. We were reminded by Miller Jones in the comments on this post that it wasn't the whole flock that was counted, but the increase of the flock. An important point to mention! (No one tithes on everything they currently own, but the new income. Or else tithing would guarantee poverty.) For the count, the new sheep were caused to pass under a rod. Every tenth sheep was given.

(LEV. 27: 32) And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.

Let's say for example there is a poor shepherd who has three new sheep.
Under a one-in-ten system: This poor shepherd brings his three sheep to be counted. There is no tenth sheep to give, so he ends up giving nothing at all.
Under a system of 10%: He would have to cut three-tenths of one sheep and hand it over. That leaves him with two and seven-tenths sheep.

Let's say for example there is a more successful shepherd with twenty-nine new sheep.
Under a one-in-ten system: This shepherd brings his twenty-nine sheep to be counted. As the tenth passes under the rod, he hands it over. As the twentieth passes under the rod, he surrenders it over as well. Since there is no thirtieth sheep, nothing further is taken from him.
Under a system of 10%: He would have to surrender two whole sheep, then cut nine-tenths of a third sheep and hand it over. That leaves him with twenty six and one-tenth sheep.

Do you see the difference?

Let's do what is un-biblical and turn this tithe example into one of money. I only do this because so many people think of tithing in terms of money income, although that "biblical" idea is not in the Bible anywhere.

Ten percent of $19.98 is $1.99. One-in-ten of $19.98 is $1.00.
Ten percent of $983.75 is $98.37. One-in-ten of $983.75 is $98.00.
Same starting amounts, different tithe. The two systems are similar but not the same.

There is a tangible difference between 10% and one-in-ten. What is that poor shepherd supposed to do with that seven-tenths of a sheep, exactly? Plus, with one-in-ten you never have to round up.

If you understand how tithing really worked, it makes the ridiculousness of the Pharisees even greater. They didn't just weigh their herbs and spices then hand over 10%. No. If they were doing it as expected, then they had to count it all out and give one out of every ten. Talk about strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! Doing all of that fastidious counting, but missing the law of love almost completely.

CONCLUSION

Which system is the more merciful? Which system wastes no resources? Which system only takes from those who can afford it? Which system gives the poor a fighting chance to increase? 
It's not the system of 10%.

If someone tells you tithing is a system of giving 10%, you tell them to get behind you. The Bible never advocates a system of tithing ten percent (let alone thirty percent). The biblical tithe was one-in-ten. There's a difference!

This is a moot point anyway. The tithing system, whether it was ten percent or one-in-ten, is gone. Gone with the Old Covenant and the Levitical priesthood. Replaced in the New Covenant by a system of freewill giving. If you want more about this, we have several articles on our Categories page.

So, for all of the people who talk about tithing and how it should be about money and how a tithe is ten percent, you might want to search the scriptures as the noble Bereans did and reconsider what your Minister told you. Apparently, this goes even for the mainstream Protestants. Because, chances are you're doing it wrong.

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

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

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

Ron,

Just a few things:

Flowery, syrupy love. Yes, how fake. Apparently love should be sober and formal. Sounds so... warm and loving. But then that makes sense coming from a man who admittedly has to work at showing affection.

You're always going on about Elohim insinuating it means family/God family. Show me proof. You won't find it. You say Jesus' name is Jesus Christ. No, Christ is one of His titles, just as is Yahweh and Rock and Savior, et al. You also say that you will be gods... um, no. Only the Father and the Son are God. Again, God said there was no God created before Him, nor will there be one created after.... we were created... which is also proof that Jesus did not have a beginning.

Last week you went on about Mother Teresa, how people are selfish, there's nothing good in anyone... she was not of God.

So based on this reasoning not a single person is of God... and Ron, you are no exception.

You seem to have a habit of making arguments that don't hold water.

Like "How can He inherit what's already His? The Bible says Yahweh inherits, which I talk about in "Did Jesus Have A Beginning? RePost. Anyone who studies and researches scripture should know that.

You go on about people who who say they have new truth and how haughty they are about what they saw and believed. Well, you tell me; how are you any different? Where is your proof that you have the truth?

I have proof that you are a false teacher, a false prophet leading people away from Jesus. So easily proved. So easily it's laughable.

PKG is your church, yes yours, it's not God's, you don't teach what the Bible says. You teach twisted lies. You pervert the word of God.

Members,

Maybe it's just not your time yet.

You need to understand; Unless you wake up and repent (before the return of Jesus/or the death of your physical body - which ever comes first), I believe you will not be the Bride of Christ. I believe that once you realize the truth, you will accept it and thus be in the kingdom... but not as the Bride. I want you to be part of the Bride of Christ. I want that for you. How could I not?

 Members, can you prove me wrong? Go back and read the Yahweh article (the quickest, easiest one to investigate) then comment or e-mail me the proof that those scriptures don't prove Jesus did not have a beginning, that Jesus is not Yahweh too. Define what those scriptures actually mean, if you don't agree with me. If that particular teaching of Ron's is wrong, what else is?

If I was working on a math problem and got it wrong, how would you show me the actual solution? You wouldn't just say "that's wrong" or "I don't see it that way," you'd go through the steps to show me the solution to the problem, (unless, of course you didn't care).

So Ron was talking about the cesspools on the internet; do you think my blog is a cesspool? Do you think your going to grow sick spiritually because you "dig though the garbage" on my blog? Because you "swim" in my so-called "icky tank?" "eww." Ron says some of the stuff on the internet almost got to him and he had to battle it. I find that interesting. Sounds like he almost saw the truth of God, but sadly, Satan was able to keep his hold on him. 

Well, I ask you, where are my lies. Show me proof.

Let me ask you this; how is Ron any different than me? Where is the proof that he has the truth?

Don't believe his lies and his tricky, crafty words. Tell me how he is any different. Show me the proof. This blog shows proof that he does not have the truth. As RW likes to say: anyone with the eyes to see will see. Anyone called of God will see it is the truth. Unless your being called, you're just not going to see it.

You can't be one with God when you've been cut off, alienated from Jesus.

The unity and oneness you have, this family that Ron talks about, is not with God, it's with Ron. Ron is not of God. He teaches a different Gospel and a different Jesus.

Ron, It's interesting... are you telling your congregation it's okay to keep FOT in their homes? Because, you said they cannot possibly grow spiritually at home, just them and the Father and Jesus. I guess it's okay since you can teach them with your sermons. You sure have a lot of holes in your teachings. You contradict yourself repeatedly. I was wondering; will they be keeping the entire Feast, or just a few days? You know, with the huge deal you make about Pentecost and which day it should start on, and the importance of Sabbaths. But I suppose it would be okay, if you give them permission. Then it won't be counted as a sin for breaking Gods very specific rules for keeping annual Sabbaths. Wow, they are so lucky to have you... the special 'called one'... whose every prophesy failed.

(By the way members, for those of you who lost your jobs last FOT, or who will lose them this time, or lose them again - let me give you something to ponder; God is love, God is love, God is love... and He expects you to prove it by losing your jobs and struggling financially? God is love, God is love, God is love.)

Then you go on about Jn. 14:10-19 and obeying Jesus' commands - like the Old Covenant Ten Commandments were the only commands ever given by God! Jesus said obey my commands, but you say Jesus was not the God of the Old Testament, yet you talk like Jesus is talking about the commands given at Sinai, which makes them the Fathers commands, not Jesus'.

You mock those who say they have loved God their whole life. You say they have not and they have a lot to learn, (you know, not 'keeping God's law & all). Well, as you know, everyone sins. Does it mean you, Ron, really did not love God before He allegedly revealed "truths" to you? Do you have a true blue tried and tested method to find out if someone has the 'truth' and thus, 'loves' God? Get over yourself. You are so self-righteous.

Tell me, how can you, Ron, know God if you can't admit the truth of Jer. 23:5-6 and Is. 48:12-13, 16. Is it because one of the most difficult things people face, is that their belief might be wrong, to acknowledge it and accept the truth - God's truth?

This is what those verses say;

Jer. 23:5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD (Yahweh, the self-existent, eternal). [In this case, the Father], "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King [Jesus] who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD (Yahweh, the self-existent, eternal) Our Righteousness.

[Who is the righteous branch? Jesus is. What will he be called? Yahweh Our righteousness. Which Yahweh? The Son.]

Is. 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

[The speaker identifies himself as the First and the Last, and then goes on to say;]

13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

[Here, this speaker says he laid the foundations of the earth and spread out the heavens. Who is this speaker, aside from the creator and the First and the Last? He identifies himself further in the following verse;]

16 "Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign LORD (Yahweh, the self-existent, eternal) [In this case, the Father] has sent me, with his Spirit.

[He says the Sovereign Yahweh sent him, meaning; the Sovereign Yahweh sent the individual who laid the foundations of the earth, and spread out the heavens, the One who identified himself as the First and the Last.]

[More simply put; Jesus says the Sovereign Yahweh sent the individual who laid the foundations of the earth. Jesus is the creator. Jesus is Yahweh. The Father is Yahweh.]

Jesus said He came to reveal the Father. Interesting. What's to reveal? He's the God they've always known, isn't He? After all, according to you, Jesus didn't exist then.

It's amazing how what you "know," is 'from God', but not what I or anyone else knows. Everyone proclaims they have the truth - what makes you ANY different from them? Where is your proof? You don't have it. You know full well Ron, that when your first set of prophesies failed, that it was proof that God was not working with you, because God is not a liar. Can you tell us which of God's prophets He made look like a false prophet because what was proclaimed did not come to pass? You can't because God said when that happens, they are prophesies that did not come from Him.

Ron, you have told the congregation to go back to all the 'truths' God has given your church. Well, you need to tell them to go to their Bibles and 'truly' study, because they clearly don't. You and I both know that if they did, you'd be penniless. You must be pretty scared. How would you pay the taxes on your house? Yikes. Pretty clever how you came up with the plan and got a big chunk of their second tithe. Things are pretty tight with people dropping out, huh? Have you been investing or...? What's the plan for your financial stability when your second set of dates fall through?

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

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on my current understanding. 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.