1.His utter dependence upon God. The old Jew was likely to overlook that. "My power and the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth". But wait a minute: the rancher bred the cattle to be sure. But did he make the cow bear the prized calf he is now offering? And the farmer plowed the land and planted and watered and weeded it too. But did he give the increase he is now waving before the LORD? No. Obviously not. Someone else was involved. And that "Someone" is "The LORD who gave him the power to get wealth". And so, by offering up these sacrifices of livestock, grain, and so on, the Hebrew farmer was vividly reminded of his dependence on God. And that--whatever the cost of the sacrifice--was a lesson well worth the expense.

2.The Divine claim upon His life. The Hebrew knew--in theory--that God must have first place in his life. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me!" But this God was rather distant and quiet. Others needs, though were more immediate and much louder! His wife nagging for a new dress; his children crying for more food; his creditors dunning him for payment; the government exacting its taxes. And so, although he knew--and believed that God must have priority, the demands of everyday life sometimes made him forget it! But the prescribed offerings forced him to remember. Last year's rations are spent. This year's crop is just arriving. His children are crying for hunger. The first stalks of grain would make a good loaf of bread or two. And so, maybe...but no! "Honour the LORD with thy substance and with the firstfruits of all thine increase". And so, trembling, but obedient, he takes the precious grain, waves it before the LORD, and burns it on the Divine altar. Thus, amid the everyday cares of life, this offering forces him to "put first the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness". But no one ever did that without also finding "all these things added to them".

3.These sacrifices would also remind him of the gratitude he ought to feel toward God. The sacrificial system took economic reality into account. Some Hebrews were rich; others poor; and still others, in-between. Thus, the same animal wasn't required of everyone. A rich man might very well offer an ox or a bull. The middle-class farmer might give a sheep or a goat. The poor man, alas, could only afford a pigeon or a pair of turtle doves. And so, as the livestock was brought for sacrifice, the middle-class man might have looked to his rich friend and felt horribly impoverished. But before he could indulge too much self-pity, here comes the man with the birds! And suddenly, things aren't so bad after all. Instead of whining about how little I have, maybe I ought to praise God and return thanks for what I do have! Even the poor man could do the same. For even though his doves were a pathetic offering compared to the rich man's fancy bulls, God accepted them just the same!

1.Is it because He needs it? The nineteenth verse puts the lie to that: "But my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus". He has wealth infinitely more precious than the pathetic little checks you can offer Him now and then.

2.Well, maybe He doesn't need it. But His cause in the world surely does, right? After all, it costs money to keep up a church, send missionaries, and so on. Right? Wrong! Paul specifically and repeatedly spurns that idea. He appreciated what the Philippians had given him to be sure. But did he need it? v.11: "Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, therewith to be content". v.13: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me". v.17a: "Not that I seek the gift". v.18a: "Indeed I have all and abound!" No. God's cause in this world will flourish just fine with or without your money! Today's most lavishly financed "Crusade" cannot duplicate the work of one poor tentmaker.

3.The answer is something else altogether. God wants your money because you'll be richer without it. v.17: "Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account".

1.Let's look at the first "poor" man. v.19: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt and thieves break through and steal". This "poor wretch" has a pile of money: both paper and coin. But he's destitute, you see, because moths are eating his paper money, rust is corroding his coin, and thieves are hauling both away. And so, he is being looted as we speak and, therefore, really has nothing.

2.The second "poor" man is easier to identify with. v.25: "Therefore, I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink or what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothes?" This "pauper: is of middle-class stock. He has enough money to make ends meet--for today. But, in these uncertain economic times, his job might phased out. Inflation might dissipate his savings. And, without a good health plan, a serious illness would wipe him out. And so, even though he has enough for today, he's tied up in knots about tomorrow. He can't enjoy what he has for fear that he'll lose it. Therefore, he really has nothing at all.

3.But now, let's look at the "rich man" of our passage. v.33: "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you". We don't know this man's income. But we do know this: He's giving the first part of his money to God. He, like everyone else, is concerned for his family. He has taxes to pay. He needs to think about retirement, too. But, whatever his other priorities, God always comes first. Rather than "cutting God out of the budget", he puts Him at the top, and finds something else to do without. And of course, being so wreckless with his money lands him in the poor house, doesn't it? Apparently not. He is "putting first the kingdom of God" and "all these things are being added to him".

1.First, and of most importance, your giving ought to be "off the top". If there is to be "No other god before Him", then no bill (be it ever so vital) can take priority over His claim. That, however, is more than an inference. It is a command. Proverbs 4:8 "Honor the LORD with thy substance and with the firstfruits of all thy increase".

At this point, many Christians are compromised. They reason like this: "God understands, P.G.& E. doesn't."

And here, they are half-right. God does understand. But don't for a minute confuse "understand" with "approve".

"You offer defiled blood on my altar. But you say, I what way have we defiled you? By saying, The table of the LORD is contemptible (i.e., of no importance). And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably? says the LORD of Hosts. But now entreat the LORD's favor, that He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hand, will He accept you favorably?" Malachi 1:7-9

For some of you, I know, this will be incredibly difficult. But there is only one way to do it. And it has nothing to do with budgeting, skrimping, saving, or getting a second job. You have to make this a matter of conscience: "If I touch it, I am a thief!". "Will a man rob God?" If you screw that into your conscience, then you'll be no more tempted to withhold the "firstfruits" from God than to reach into an open cash register and run off with a handful of loot.

2.Your giving ought to be sizable. The usual figure called for under the Old Covenant was a tithe, i.e., 10%. But this should not be thought of as a ceiling. Because under the same code, "free-will offerings" were also held in high repute. They, as the name indicates, would be a gift above the stipulated tithe. The New Testament doesn't specify a tithe, or any percentage of giving at all. We are left, therefore, to our Christian liberty. But "liberty" is always used, not to do the least you can, but the most! You ought, therefore, to give more than 10% to the LORD. I cannot cite a verse in support of this, but I can give a general reason: The demands of the New Covenant exceed those of the Old. Can anyone quarrel with that? Is "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause is a murderer" stricter or looser than "Thou shalt not kill"? Examples could be multiplied. If, therefore, the Jew was required to give 10% and encouraged to give more, does it seem reasonable that God would have less from us? I wish we could be free of the question, "How much do I have to give?" David's was better: "What shall I render to the LORD for all His benefits?"

3.Your giving ought to be systematic. "God is not the author of confusion". His people, therefore, ought not to give in wild bursts of enthusiasm, but according to a solid, managageable plan. The Corinthians were to "lay in store on the first day of the week". We would do well to follow their example.

4.Your giving ought to be voluntary. "Not grudgingly or of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver".

5.But most importantly, your giving ought to be an act of worship. It is not a bill to pay. It is a devotion to offer the One who "loved us and gave Himself for us".

6.Finally, your giving ought to be only a part of your wise, godly financial stewardship. This, frankly, is the only way that you can give as you ought. For no one has enough money to give 10-15-20% to God if he is incompetent or wasteful with his remaining funds.