That's what I said. I'm going to say it again. The tithe is not for today. Paying 10% of one's increase is not a rule for the New Testament believer.
"You're just trying to get out of tithing!"
No, I'm not. I've been questioning and studying this issue for 25 years, and I have been tithing for a great deal of that time (and longer), up until about two months ago, in fact. However, three things have now brought that to an end.
- The NT believer's onus is to give cheerfully and generously, not to tithe.
- Anything that does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).
- If I obey one part of the law, I am obligated to obey the whole law (Galatians 3:10-25; 5:3-4).
"But tithing isn't part of the law!"
Yes, it is; Jesus himself said so. Let's look at several translations of Matthew 23:23.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law..." (KJV).
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law..." (NIV).
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law..." (NASB 1995).
"What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law..." (NLT).
Clearly, Jesus is comparing actions that are all matters of the law, saying that tithes on even the tiniest of foods (and we'll be coming back to this food idea) should not be neglected (because the required 10% was a strict and exact measure, after all). The tithe is law.
What's more, Hebrews 7:5 states that the law requires the priestly descendants of Levi (note: not the church) to collect a tenth. The tithe is law, and the law was fulfilled in Christ.
"Okay, but Jesus just said they shouldn't neglect the tithe!"
Because he was speaking to people who were living under the Old Covenant. The New was not in effect until Jesus died on the cross and fulfilled the whole law.
"But what about Jacob promising God a tenth of all he received? That was prior to the law!"
Jacob made that promise based on God's future gift to him (Jacob = Israel) of the promised land. Jacob vowed three things: that the Lord would be his God, that the very place he was lying would be the house of God, and that he would give a tenth of all God gave him, which was the land (Gen. 28:10-22). Jacob fulfilled the second part of the vow when he named the place Bethel. He fulfilled the first part in Genesis 35, when he ordered everyone to get rid of the foreign gods. But there is no recorded fulfillment of the tithe part. Why not? I believe because he hadn't inherited the land yet, nor would he ever, as Jacob the man. He simply couldn't tithe on what he didn't own. Jacob as the nation of Israel would both inherit the land and pay the tithe, in later generations. In other words, the actual fulfillment of paying the tithe would have to be future, as indeed it was. There is no record of Jacob tithing on anything during his natural life, nor could he have given material goods directly to God anyway! What Jacob did, by making a vow, was both prophesy that Israel would pay it and obligate them to do so.
"Yes, but Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, and we see him actually do it!"
He did. As a one-time thing. And there is no command in the passage (Genesis 14:17-24) that this is to be a practice; it only says that Abram tithed on the spoils of war. Not on his income, not on the total of his assets, not on what a parcel of land produced for him (which was Jacob's promise, and thus the basis of Israel's OT tithe), and not as a requirement. What's more, there is another difference here. When a tithe is given, it is generally assumed that the giver uses the remaining 90%, or thereabouts, for his own living. But Abram wanted nothing for himself. He gave most of the spoils back to those they were stolen from, mainly Sodom and Gomorrah, holding out only a share to provide for the needs of his fighting men. This was truly a specific situation, and to draw from it a general principle that NT believers in Christ must give 10% of their monetary income to a local church is an abuse of inductive reasoning. This exchange between Abram and Melchizedek doesn't even support the OT tithe requirement for Israel (although Jacob's vow does).
By the way, the other time we see a division of the spoils of war is in Numbers 31:25-30. In this instance, the goods go half to the soldiers and half to the community. From there, the soldiers are to set apart to the Lord 1/500th, and the people 1/50th. Far from a tithe, from either group! Why don't we ever hold up this example as the one to follow?
"What about Cain giving produce from the ground and Abel giving livestock?"
No amounts are listed. I agree with the belief that they gave firstfruits, not a tithe. It's also quite possible that this is more about Abel seeing the need for a blood sacrifice, and Cain missing that significance, than it is about amounts given.
"What about Malachi?"
When you read the book of Malachi in one sitting, it's easier to grasp that he was addressing a particular group of people: Jewish priests. It doesn't say that the people weren't tithing. It says that the storehouse tithe (collected every three years) wasn't getting through the priests and into the storehouse, where it belonged. This has absolutely zero to do with the NT church.
"Any other reasons not to tithe?"
--Yes, indeed! Throughout the OT, tithing is shown to be on land and what that land produced (which is why they were tithing mint, dill, and cumin--food produced by the land!), not on money, marketplace transactions, or non-farm income (Numbers 18:21-32; Deut. 14:28, 26:12). The way the tithe was done in the OT just doesn't translate to how churches today want us to practice it.
--The book of Hebrews gives a thorough treatment of the theme of a better covenant in Christ and his fulfillment of the law.
--Tithing focuses attention on a requirement of the law and tempts people toward legalism, instead of emphasizing the cheerful, abundant giving taught in the NT.
--Why, if tithing is so important, would it not be mentioned in the Bible after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, especially in the letters of Paul? Why, if tithing was the only point of law that Jesus didn't fulfill, wouldn't we be told so point blank? Instead, Paul speaks of generous gifts, freely given. It makes much more sense to conclude, especially in light of everything else laid out here, that Paul didn't mention tithing because it no longer holds, than it does to assume he just ignored, omitted, or forgot the subject entirely. In addition, Acts 15 would have been a perfect place to lay out all rules that were transferring over from Jewish practices to Gentile believers. The new converts were in fact given four: no food sacrificed to idols, no meat from strangled animals, no blood, and no sexual immorality. If tithing were of the utmost importance, why isn't that stated anywhere in the NT?
--Statistics vary, but I've seen estimates that 5% of all Christians tithe, rising to 13% for evangelicals. You may say the only indication here is of mass disobedience, but what if we consider the idea that the Holy Spirit isn't moving on the tithe, and at some level most of us know it?
--As practiced today, the tithe takes unfair advantage of lower-income people. To someone making 20k, 2k is a big deal. To someone making 200k, 20k is a blip. One pastor of a church I attended used the line "It's not equal amounts, it's equal sacrifice." This is ignorant and inconsiderate. When the arguments they make to their people are this weak, one wonders why they don't have better ones.
--Finally, two very important reasons, as I mentioned at first: Anything that isn't done from faith is sin. If I have full faith that the tithe is not for today, and I tithe anyway? Guess what?
--Plus...if I obey one part of the law, I'm obligated to obey the whole. Trying to obey the law is telling Jesus he didn't accomplish his mission, which is beyond unthinkable.
While you will see some teachers teach this position on the tithe, you will seldom if ever hear preachers preach it. Why not? Because most are part of a denomination or governing body that licenses or ordains them and prescribes the tithe. They simply can't break ranks on this and keep their pulpits. I'm sure most who preach the tithe sincerely believe in it. Perhaps even a majority of the higher-ups in their denominations do. But it's hard not to notice that churches benefit financially, or believe they do, from asking their people to tithe. There is--no matter how many people in the chain may have pure motives--a conflict of interest.
My point is that just because a lot of pastors (as opposed to teachers) preach the tithe doesn't make it true. Why and to what degree the church as a whole preaches the tithe out of fear, rather than trusting God to provide through generous offerings, are needed questions. But precisely because we're no longer under law, we study out the scriptures, live by faith, and extend, to everyone, grace as we grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment