From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Calvinism / Baptist / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Jacob's vow to tithe[edit]

There's another reference to Old Testament tithing that would be good to cite:

Gen. 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

Gen. 28:21 So that I come again to my father’s house in peace--then shall the LORD be my God,

Gen. 28:22 And this rock, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you shall give me, I will surely give the tenth to you.


Cut the Melchizedek episode?[edit]

This long historical background on Melchizedek in the middle of the Tithe page seems inappropriate. I'm not sure who originally created this section, but if they're watching this page, I hope they'll voluntarily reduce it and/or move it to the Melchizedek page. Most of the information is already included on the Melchizedek wiki page, and a simple link to it should suffice. The other information regarding Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is appropriate and should remain here. I've only been using Wikipedia for a few days, so I'm not sure how this suggestion will be taken, or if it will even be noticed. Funhistory 19:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. After reading the episode I don't see how it figures into the concept of tithing directly. (I'm changing my tune from an earlier posting after having read the episode more carefully.) billlund 13:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
The anonymous author of this section added something similar to the article in "Melchizdek," which in the mean time has been deleted. Further, the salient points seem to be covered by other sections of the whole article, with more substantiation. I deleted this section as being redundant. billlund 22:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

My question is why you're citing to Christian scripture in a section about the Old Testament. Why aren't you citing to Jewish classics like Midrash? (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More on Tithe vs. Taxes[edit]

I want to thank DJ Clayworth and Frecklefoot for their help in tidying up my contribution. I had wanted to put the two NT quotes (Matt 23:23 and Lk 11:42) in two columns opposite each other, but I couldn't get it to work -- it it even possible in Wikipedia??? Assistance and advice is always welcome. Regarding the external links: I just left what the original contributor had written, eg. England and Ireland, and his links. I didn't feel comfortable just whacking them. I didn't check them out, but I share your view that if they are too obviously slanted, they probably should be cut out entirely. Were it my article alone, I never would have included them. About the Taxes: in Mesopotamia, they were simply that, "Taxes." My argument in the text is that, set against voluntary contributions, "taxes" makes good sense. I know they went to support the Levites, which is different from the situation in Abraham's homeland. In the original Mesopotamian -- taxes. In the Hebrew situation -- O.K. something like tax-like. Thanks again. 18:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)Chuck Eypper217.88.116.139 18:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Bear in mind that the temples throughout the ancient Near East could levy taxes as well as the central government!

Tithe vs. Taxes[edit]

I should point out, tithes were not taxes but rather they were tax-like. In certain crucial respects they do not qualify as taxes - mainly, from being too arms length from governments. Even so, they still affected payers the same way, so correcting this technical point needs to respect the spirit as well as the letter. I'll leave it a while. PML.

Extern Links[edit]

I just started looking at some of the external links. They were all dumped in at once by an anonymous user ( and all seem to be anti-tithing. While everyone is entitled to their views, I don't think just giving out anti-views is a good approach to NPOV. Sorry I didn't have the time to check them all out, but can someone please look at them and do some, er, trimming? At the very least, if someone has some pro-tithing links, please add them! That way we could have two sections in the links, clearly marked as "Pro" and "Anti" (or "Con"). Thanks! —Frecklefoot 22:31, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This thread is quite old but all of the links in this section are very much opposed to the practice of tithing. Although it may be useful to include POV links in an article in an attempt to show the source of controversy, it seems like we are unbalanced here. I can add a link to the LDS Church teachings on tithing, since it is practiced, but that can cause its own problems. Anyone care? If not, I think we should just delete the links. billlund 02:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Removed dead links. --Jimbabwean 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tithes in European countries?[edit]

At least here in Finland Evangelical-lutheran church collects (governmental tax office does this) one percent (not ten percent) from income of members of the church. Here is also other christian churches... So it would be interesting to know about tithes in other European countries, is it really collected somewhere?

I'm going to move the paragraph on France down with the other paragraphs about official state collection of "tithes." I think we should also structure these entries as subentries to a section on government collection of religious offerings. billlund 12:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Intro: "There are still European countries today that allow some churches to assess a mandatory tithe which is enforced by law.". Mandatory? Which countries? By the discriptions of individual countries, that's not the idea I get.

LDS Tithing[edit]

Members of the LDS Church (or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are required to pay tithing. Could somebody please put some reference to this on the page on tithes?

Members of the LDS Church are not "required" to pay a tithing, but it is a commandment from God and an expectation of the church. Paying a tithe is also a requirement to participate in the LDS temple, specifically, to receive a temple recommend so that the member can participate in the ordinances of the temple. (There are copious Wikipedia entries on all of this.)
Personally, I don't think that an entry regarding this for the LDS Church is appropriate in this article since no other denomination is specifically mentioned. I also think that bringing in specific practices of denominations would make the article contentious and unwieldy. Let's not do that. billlund 12:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Cleanup[edit]

This article is currently quite POV in certain sections and reads like a college essay on tithing instead of an unbiased encyclopedia article. I don't have time to elaborate further or point out specific instances right now, but a brief readthrough of the article should be enough to convince nearly anyone that work needs to be done here. - Jersyko talk 03:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I went through the article and cut out everything that smelled of POV or original research. I'm certain that this article could be expanded significantly, and I might have cut some information that could be reworded and re-inserted as well as failed to cut some info that shouldn't be in the article. I, however, learned more about tithing from reading this article than I've ever known, so I'm certainly not the person to do any more work on it. - Jersyko talk 03:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: NPOV and Cleanup[edit]

Right.... If it's LDS, its okay, but if its Catholic, its a biased POV... You even got rid of the external links.

--El Caudillo 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I'm not prejudiced against either Mormons or Catholics. Your edits, or at least some of them (which i indicated in my edit summary), were POV. You deleted passages without explanation and added POV phrases like "Abraham], patriarch and father of nations" (implying that Abraham was, in fact, both of those things) and "those who serve the altar should live by the altar." Now, you've added what amounts to a sermon, beginning with "Jews, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians who tithe, understand that no man may outdo God in the act of charity." I will be the first to admit that this article needs work (look at the edit history, it used to be an anti-tithing rant before i cut most of it), but the work needs to be scholarly, neutral point of view, and not focus too heavily on one Christian denomination.
I would, however, be perfectly fine with you replacing the scripture references to the LDS site with references to another, reputable translation. - Jersyko talk 21:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

What do you expect? Tithing is a religious subject, particularly an Abrahamic religious subject. (Eastern religions do not have this.) If it were secular, it would be 'taxation.'

Actually, it's odd that while this article speaks of what tithing is, it doesn't touch on WHY tithing is done or the reasons for doing so.

Now, "patriarch and father of nations" is a title, used and accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims AKA. the "Abrahamic Faiths" that trace their lineage directly through him.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus gave a specific commandment to tithe, but understand the logic of keeping religious matters out of the control of the state. Hence, "those who serve the altar should live by the altar." It's a statement of logic. POV... maybe, but what do you suggest to explain Catholic viewpoints. Lumping us in with the viewpoints of other faiths regardless of differences does no service to any religion at all. Equality does not mean 'same-ness.'

Now, admittedly, most of the other OT Bible passages can be junked since they simply show instances of tithing rather than any important information.

The two that should be kept in (and cited) are

1. Numbers 18:8-32 wherein God institutes the tithe for the first time, and
2. Malachias 3:8-12 wherein God explains the benefits of tithing.

--El Caudillo 02:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I started to respond to your post, but thought better of it when i had this idea - maybe we should have a different section in the article for different faiths? If you like that idea, since it seems you know quite a bit about tithing from a Catholic perspective, I encourage you to write that section of the article. Of course, remember to preface what you say with "according to ____, God commands" or the like instead of merely "God commands" or any other statement that could be construed as POV. I'm certain there are wikipedians out there that know about tithing from a Jewish, Protestant, Mormon, and Muslim perspective, and I invite them to write sections of this article on those and other faiths. I think this can solve some of the article's problems, I hope you agree. - Jersyko talk 03:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Let's do it.

--El Caudillo 08:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The weasel word superscript warnings have gone a little over the top. Saying "some christians think that ....." is an acceptable statement without a citation referring to which specific people.

It's no different from saying "some people are dark skinned", you wouldn't need a citation as the statement is not referring to a specific group (it could be Indians, Africans or Australian Aborigines for example). Okay, it's somewhat subjective but still acceptable. Admittedly there are a few too many uncited statements, but many of them are okay.

If it said "some groups of christians" or "certain christian denominations" or especially "a vatican priest has stated" then it definately would require a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure why only Catholics think that a bible reference they all have says that ministers should be supported. But anyway, someone deleted a bibleverse saying that since it was in a Protestant bible, it couldn't be used to support a Catholic reference. That is all well and good BUT, a) If the KJV version says it, what do you suppose that the odds are that a "Catholic" version (whatever that means nowdays) supports it? b) Versions barely differ except in actual books missing from the Protestant version. This book is there. c) Catholics often use the same bible that Protestants do nowdays (except they treat the "apocrypha" as real books, d) it is better to have A reference than no reference at all, and e) if you are going to delete a reference, you'd better either flag the sentence as needing a reference or supply one yourself. Student7 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible version[edit]

The article states that the quotes are KJV, but if I understand correctly, the Mormons use their own translation that was extensivelty edited by (or through?) J. Smith (and I'm not talking about the Book of Mormon, but rather the Old and New Testaments.) Would it be alright to point to some other KJV, or better still, RSV, or even better, NIV??? Codex Sinaiticus 21:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not used as the official version of the Bible by members of the LDS Church. Other factions do, but any links to the bible on the [1] website are links to the King James version. Read the wiki article for more info. Mrmcgibby 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RSV okay for you guys?

Hmmmm... Protestants won't accept Douay-Rheims and Catholics won't accept King James.... Well... how about we stick to Revised Standard Verson? (Not NRSV.) It's the only modern Bible version universally accepted by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. Not sure about Jews, though...

Bible: Revised Standard Version

--El Caudillo 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"universally accepted" is quite POV. No version of the bible is "universally accepted", when in fact the choice of bible translation is quite often a point of contention between groups. I would say that the best solution is to simply allow editors to link to whatever version they want to link to. Mrmcgibby 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What about the practice of including the bible verses as directly inserted links, rather than as refs e.g.
The yearly tithe to the Levites could be consumed anywhere. Numbers 18:31
I haven't looked around religion pages much, so maybe it's common, but it interferes with reading the Wikipedia text. It seems to me that the style should be either as a footnote (i.e. a ref link)
The yearly tithe to the Levites could be consumed anywhere. [1]
a parenthetical
The yearly tithe to the Levites could be consumed anywhere (Numbers 18:31).
or incorporated into the text
The yearly tithe to the Levites could be consumed anywhere, according to Numbers 18:31
Is there a preferred style, or can I Be Bold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbowman (talkcontribs) 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


The reference to Henry David Thoreau really doesn't belong here -- or anywhere else in this article. It explains the principle of conscientious objecting, but that isn't what the article is about even though it mentions such objections to tithing. Thoreau's objections were not to tithing and he did not make them in Ireland, so I suggest removing the reference.

  • Yep, deleted. - Jersyko talk 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tithing in the Hebrew Bible[edit]

Seems to me that discussion of the Hebrew practice of tithing should mention Deuteronomy 14 and 26, which seem to indicate that the tithe was only given to the Levites every third year. I'm not a Hebrew Bible scholar, but it would be helpful to have some comment on this. Atterlep 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Responce to above question: There are three tithes in the Bible. The first tithe went directly to the levites that lived in the local community. The second tithe (collected on years 1, 2, 4, 5 of the sabbatical cycle) was taken to Jerusalem to be eaten there. The third tithe (collected years 3 and 6 of the sabbatical cycle) was given to the poor and widows who lived in the local community.

These practices are clearly explained and defined in the Talmud in various tractates. The main tractates would be tractate Ma'aseroth and tractate Ma'aser Sheni. - Brak]

"finished produce[edit]

This term isn't defined in the article. The definition is in Mishnah Peah: "when the pile is smoothed over." Incidentally, this occurs after the poor have been allowed to take the corners of the field, the produce they can eat while they work on it, the gleanings, the poor clusters and single grapes of vines, and part of tree crops like olives, figs, and dates. That is in addition to the poor tithe of years 1, 2, 4, and 5. All of this is in Peah. This article doesn't use enough sources directed to Jewish practice to be really good (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about a section where the tithing practices of different religions, denominations and sects would be described. The section 'Tithing in the Bible' mentions the tithing beliefs of two groups
    • Word of Faith
    • LDS
Should these two references be moved to a new section 'Tithing Practices' or 'Current Tithing Beliefs and Practices'?
  • Also, the statement 'Despite the widespread preaching of the tithe in many christian churches, very few church members actually consistently contribute 10% or more' is not documented. It should be backed up with link to statistics or removed.
  • Also the statement, '(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being one possible exception, as members are not considered as being in full fellowship if they do not pay an honest or full tithe)' is not true and I am going to change it. Any suggestions? Hoquiam72 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the tithe is used to maintain the institution of the church and control the flock through fear.

Colgate and Thithing[edit]

Question from Vitor Madeira[edit]

Hi! I've heard several times on my church that Mr. Colgate (the founder of Colgate-Palmolive) gave big ammounts of tithes to his church, and that at his elder ages, near his death, he even gave 90% of his earnings instead of just 10% as the Bible states.

I've heard some times my pastor saying this in order to give examples of famous thithers, but I just can't confirm if this is true. Is this a hoax or is it true?

Could please someone help me on this matter?

Thank you very much. Vitor Madeira 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Colgate gave as much as 50% of his income away maybe more. However it doesn't mean he thought it was a tithe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The God of Yesterday's Tithe Still the Same Today?[edit]

Of course God never changes. But no matter which side you take about tithe and offerings - the form, function, or purpose of the tithe has changed in some way. Can both sides be right about how the tithe has changed, or has one side changed/not changed God's laws to fit what they want? It seems there is a majority of agreement that the tithe changed after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. So, what differentiating factors do you believe effected our function of the tithe today - the law, His chosen people, his character, our needs, culture, His priesthood, government? Jbbaab44 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article or sermon?[edit]

Overall, a good article. However, it reads more like a Christian sermon or dissertation on the subject of tithing rather than an encyclopedia article. You should stick strictly to the subject of tithing in history and how it has been applied by the church in history, and refrain from Biblical interpretation. Your statement that, "It is therefore a much better interpretation, both similar to circumcision and the observation of the Sabbath, that the practise of tithing (that is compulsory giving of 10% of ones income) is no longer applicable to the New Testament church. Instead church members are encouraged "to give as the Lord has prospered (them)” [I Corinthians 16:2], and "every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” [II Corinthians 9:7]." is definitely Biblical exegesis and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Scott Marcus (talkcontribs) 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do hope this will be taken care of. I came as a scholar and a person of faith, and yet this article bothered me, as it seemed preachy and did not have good, reliable references on various points of view. Even the use of "we" in relation to Jesus implies that the author is writing about how we SHOULD relate to Christianity, and I - as a Christian - cannot tolerate that in an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this topic area. I do know when I'm reading a well-referenced encyclopedia article and when I'm reading a sermon or bible study material, though. (Note "bible study" is not the same as "biblical study," and this article as currently written is the former, not the latter.)

If you could state what exactly your objection is, and discuss more particularly the material you object to, perhaps the discussion that follows would either eliminate your concerns or result in the elimination of the material you object to. For now, just generalized statements such as "it reads more like a Christian sermon or dissertation on the subject of tithing rather than an encyclopedia article." and this article...seemed preachy." and even "I do know when I'm reading a well-referenced encyclopedia article and when I'm reading a sermon or bible study material." and that it is more biblical study rather than bible study quality. From such nondescriptive statements, I fail to see exactly what it is that's being objected to. However, if you explain a bit better, citing specific areas of concern, perhaps we can do something about either the concerns or the content. As it is, the objections at this point seem so vague as to eliminate any possibility of discussing your concerns further and fixing or attempting to fix whatever it is you feel needs to be fixed. So, please try to be a little more specific. That way, other editors watching this article (including me) may have a better idea about how to resolve the specifically stated problems you bring to our attention. I look forward to being able to help any way I can, but in order for me to do so, you will have to be more specific about which particular parts of the article merit each of the criticisms you mentioned. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensive re-write needed[edit]

Or maybe take a blunt axe to about half of it. The whole article's full of WP:WEASEL words, and contains a great deal of POV commentary and unreferenced assertions on the rights and wrongs of tithing in Christian churches. The intro also contained the shockingly arrogant assertion that tithing is a mainly Christian practice, supported by a complete lack of reference to tithing in other religions. I've made a start on cleaning up the sections on tithing in Judaism and Christianity, but a great deal more work remains. I've also added short sections on tithing in Islam and Sikhism. A section on tithing in Hinduism should also be added, as well as expansion of modern tithing practices in Judaism. Per Ardua (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A good start. I haven't read all your changes, but a quick skim-read looks most promising. Thanks. I have reverted just one edit, that had merged the 'notes' (inline citations) from 'references'. Wikipedia seems to have a variety of naming conventions, but keeping these two section separate seems to be common across them all. I intend to do a quick refinement of one of them in a few minutes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Points not yet made[edit]

In all my years of hearing the doctrine of tithing taught in churches and seminary. I have never heard the passages from Deut 14 included! There, in summary, it is clear that the tithe is for the people --- not the clergy -- to be enjoyed as a celebration meal. In fact the chapter concludes that one should take the tithe and buy a steak and bottle of wine (or strong drink)....

This impression that the tithe is for the people is further reinforced with Mal 2:1 And now, O priests, this command is for you. Where we see that the division of Malachi is chapter one for the people, with chapter two through 4 for the priests. This then illustrates that the benchmark prooftext of Mal 3:10 "Bring all the tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house" further illustrates that the tithe is for the enjoyment of the people, and we see the prophet chastising the priests.

In short, if churches that want to teach tithing would provide the "steak and bottle of wine" celebration meal as part of worship they would have far fewer attendance problems -- WB --Wbrannon (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


In Austria "church tax" is not collected by the government (as the title of the section suggests) but by the respective denominations themselves. Gugganij (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Acts 5:1-20 inclusion relevant?[edit]

Can someone explain why under the "Judaism and Christianity" paragraph, the following is added: "Further, Acts 5:1-20 contains the account of a man and wife who were living in one of these groups. They sold a piece of property and donated only part of the selling price to the church but claimed to have given the whole amount and immediately 'fell down and died' when confronted by the apostle Peter over their dishonesty."? I don't see this addition being relevant to the tithe. The article notes that in the New Testament, "free offerings" and communal living was employed, perhaps in place of the tithe. But the incident in Acts 5: 1-20 seems to add no needed clarification. Mateck (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A tenth?[edit]

Strongs concordance says that the root Hebrew word used in Gen 14:20 & Gen 28:22 is עשׂר or asar. Could anyone shed some light on what it originally meant and how we get it to mean the fraction 1/10? JBel (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking Challah[edit]

If this practice is relevant to tithing, the article should explicitly lay out why. If it is unrelated, the mention should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscendingPig (talkcontribs) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


I propose removal of the section Ancient Near East. The section is marked WP:OR since two years, and the scribbler haven't provided any valid secondary source yet. Next agreeing passerby: please remove! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Six months later, some sourced and some deleted as appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

United States - Religious organizations[edit]

The following paragraph has been removed by @Editor2020:. I can't find any sources after a brief search. Only this one regarding the Catholic church's stance on tithing. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actual collection procedures vary from church to church, from the common, strictly voluntary practice of "passing the plate" in Catholic and mainline Protestant churches, to formal, church-mediated tithing[clarification needed] in some conservative Protestant churches (as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), to membership fees as practiced in many Jewish congregations. There is no government involvement in church collections (though some contributions are considered tax-exempt as charity donations), but because of less-strict income and tax reporting requirements for religious groups, some churches have been placed under legal and media scrutiny for their spending habits.[citation needed]

Section of Malachi in error[edit]

The portion that relates to Malachi 3:7 is in complete error based on the context of the document. The beginning of the letter outlines who this prophecy is to: "A prophecy: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi" Mal 1:1. The whole of this prophecy is to the whole of Israel. Does this apply to Malachi 3:7?

In verse 6 of Malachi chapter 3, we are given another explicid of who this prophecy it to: "I the LORD do not change. So you, the decendants fo Jacob...". In this portion of the prophecy, God is still talking to all of Israel. The only portion Israel, which had control over the distribution of the tithes in the storehouse was that of Levi and not all of Israel. Plus, notice the wording used. This portion of prophecy is not talking about distribution from the storehouse but bringing into the store house. This was a requirement of all of Israel except for the tribe of Levi and the decendants of Arron.

I've tried to make changes to Wikipedia articles in the past, with many references to support the statements, or claims made. Yet, they are always deleted. How is it that we have a portion of article with a claim made about a specific text that remains within the article; yet the text makes no clear statement of the claim AND even notes citation needed. (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Pastor Wayne Smith64.134.180.87 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Numbers 18:31