Do you give 10% of your income to the work of God? Do you think by doing so you are fulfilling the Mosaic command to tithe? Think again. Israelites were commanded to pay upwards of ~23% in tithes, not a mere 10%.
The Mosaic Law required the children of Israel to pay three different tithes: levitical tithe (Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21,24), annual festival tithe (Dt 14:22-27), and tri-annual poor tithe (Dt 14:28-29). The levitical tithe was the standard tithe. It required all Israelites to give 10% of their increase (crops, fruit, livestock) to the Levites. This tithe was probably offered sporadically throughout the year.
The festival tithe was to be “paid” annually when the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for one of the national festivals. The worshipper was instructed to take 10% of his annual increase to Jerusalem and consume it together with his family and the Levites, at the festival. They feast would consist of grains, meat, and drink.
The poor tithe was paid every three years. Like the festival tithe, this tithe was intended to feed others, including Levites. Unlike the festival tithe, however, this meal was intended to feed foreigners, orphans, and widows—not at Jerusalem, but within one’s own city. Rather than tithing on the past three years, the worshipper only had to tithe on his increase for the year in which the poor tithe was required.
The big question is whether these tithes were concurrent, or whether one replaced the other(s). Given the fact that the Levites needed financial support throughout the year rather than a single annual meal, it stands to reason that the festival tithe was an additional tithe on top of the standard levitical tithe. The same is true of the poor tithe. There is no hint in Scripture that the poor tithe replaced the festival tithe every third year, and thus it stands to reason that the poor tithe was to be paid on top of the festival tithe and levitical tithe every third year.
How much do all these tithes add up to over a three year period? It depends on how it was calculated. If the festival and poor tithes were based on what remained after paying the levitical and festival tithes, then for the first and second year every Israelite would pay 19% in tithes, and for the third year they would pay 27.1%, for an average of 21.7% per year. If the festival and poor tithes were based on one’s gross increase, then for the first and second year every Israelite would pay 20% in tithes, and for the third year they would pay 30%, for an average of 23.3% per year.
This presents a problem for those who appeal to the Mosaic Law to teach that tithing is obligatory for the church. If the Mosaic laws regarding tithing are binding on the church, then so is the percentage and mode of giving. There is no principled basis on which to uphold one tithe (the levitical tithe) as obligatory while abrogating the other two. As Andreas Kostenberger and David Croteau write, “To call for the cessation of two of the three tithes, while leaving one intact, would seem to require some major theological nuancing.”[1]
The church needs to make a choice. We either need to stop appealing to the Mosaic Law to support the doctrine of tithing, or we need to start teaching the people of God to give 23% of their income to God’s work. For those who might be tempted to do the latter, good luck. If only 5% of Christians comply when they are only required to give 10% of their income, even fewer will comply if they are required to pay 23%. Furthermore, if we are going to appeal to the Mosaic covenant to inform our practice of giving, then we must tithe in the same manner as the Israelites tithed. Only 10% of our income will go to support the ministry. The other 13% must be used to host elaborate and expensive annual dinners for one’s family, those in the ministry, and the poor. I think the choice is clear: We need to stop appealing to the Mosaic law in support of tithing. The reasons are not practical, but theological: The Mosaic Law has been replaced by the New Covenant, and thus its laws regarding tithing do not apply to the church.
None of this is to say that one cannot teach tithing as a good principle of giving. While we should not be appealing to the Mosaic Covenant, we could appeal to the practice of Abraham, for instance. Personally, given the examples of giving depicted in the New Testament, I think Christians should give at least 10% of their income to the work of God. There is no upper limit. We should give according to need, and according to our ability (Acts 11:29; 2 Corinthians 8:3; 9:7). As Paul said, “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Corinthians 9:6, ESV).
[1]Andreas Kostenberger and David Croteau, “Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving: A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles”; available from http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/pdfarticles/bbrtithing2.pdf; Internet; accessed 26 June 2006.
April 17, 2011 at 8:25 am
Jason, I think you got it right about the Mosaic Law. However, this is almost like a strawman since many who tithe also realize it was a principle prior to the Law, which elaborated on it. It is true though that the Mosaic Law is not a basis for tithing.
LikeLike
April 17, 2011 at 2:35 pm
James,
I’ve never seen a church yet that taught tithing without an appeal to the Mosaic Law for its justification. So if we are going to appeal to the Law, then why not tithe the way they did under the Law? That’s my point.
And I did mention that one could appeal to Abraham to teach tithing, so I don’t think I was constructing a straw man.
Jason
LikeLike
April 17, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Jason, I guess my experience has been different. Overall it has been based on pre-Law principles as you suggested also. I haven’t met or heard this actually taught but I do know that some have mistakenly taught something about the half-shekel that I found completely going back to the Mosaic Law.
LikeLike
April 17, 2011 at 8:39 pm
So when you’ve heard teaching on tithing, they’ve never appealed to a text like Malachi? If not, they we do have different experiences with this. 🙂 I’ve been a part of 6 different UPC churches, and in 5 of those churches they appealed to the Mosaic law in support of tithing. The only church that didn’t appeal to the Law is a church that doesn’t believe tithing is doctrine that applies to the church.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 11:34 am
Yes, I believe you. I have heard the quote from Malachi several times as well. I am not saying no reference to a verse under the period of the Law wasn’t cited. However, it was in reference to the history and scope of tithing, not that it is currently binding in the articulated form of the Mosaic Law. Maybe this is where I feel you are introducing the strawman. Just because a person references or quotes Malachi does that mean they are also basing the principle of tithing on the Law? I think not. Would you suggest we not even reference Malachi? Wouldn’t that be like discussing Plantinga’s ontological argument without reference to the development of that particular argument?
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I agree with James. If a decree transcends the Law, a citation of that decree from the Law no more obligates one to adopt every regulation thereof anymore than the citation of the capital punishment statutes obligates one to execute witches.
With respect to an appeal to the Law, notice what Paul writes,
I Corinthians 14 (Amplified)
34. The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.
Paul cites the law to with respect to submission, but he is not corrspondingly adopting every legal regulation between husbands and wives.
Notice also:
II Corinthians 9 (Amplified)
13. Do you not know that those men who are employed in the services of the temple get their food from the temple? And that those who tend the altar share with the altar [in the offerings brought]?
14. [On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.
Paul is neither reintroducing animal sacrifices when he cites the Law to justify material support of the ministry, nor is he arguing a 23% cut out of your paycheck.
Regards.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Subscription only.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 1:38 pm
James,
I understand your concerns, but keep in mind what I am speaking to in this post. I am not speaking to those who quote verses in the Mosaic Law as part of a survey of Biblical giving. I am speaking to those who think the Mosaic teaching on tithing is binding on the church. As I wrote, “This presents a problem for those who appeal to the Mosaic Law to teach that tithing is obligatory for the church. If the Mosaic laws regarding tithing are binding on the church, then so is the percentage and mode of giving.”
In my experience, those who quote Malachi and other Mosaic commands do not do so for a historical perspective. They think it is binding on the church, and teach it as such (including the blessings and cursings). If they did not believe it applies to us, then it is dishonest (to put it charitably) of them to even discuss the blessings and cursings associated with tithing under the Mosaic Law (as they tell the people that they will be blessed if they give their tithes, and cursed if they don’t).
If one were discussing the history of giving, then sure, they should talk about giving under the Law. But I have never heard a pastor teach on giving or tithing who quoted verses from the Mosaic Law, but offered the disclaimer that those verses are not binding on the church today. Perhaps I am guilty of addressing a minority of churches, but from experience I know I am not guilty of building a straw man. These churches exist, and I have been on their pews. Those are the churches I am speaking to.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Scalia,
I agree with you that “if a decree transcends the Law, a citation of that decree from the Law no more obligates one to adopt every regulation thereof….” But that’s not the issue I am addressing. The issue is with those who think the tithing laws of the Mosaic covenant do apply to the church today. If they think the Mosaic teaching on tithing is binding, then that teaching would supersede anything Abraham did (which, I should remind the readers, Abraham was never commanded to do—the first and only command to tithe comes from the Mosaic Law).
As for Paul’s reference to the Law in 1 Cor 14, scholars debate what he is actually referring to. Personally, I think he is referring to the story of the Fall, which predates the Law. The reason Paul says “the Law” is because the story is contained in the Pentateuch, and the category of this literature was called “law” (remember the tripartite division of “law, prophets, psalms/writings”).
As for 2 Cor 9, I agree. He is appealing to practices of the law to illustrate a principle that people should be able to make a living from what they do for a living.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Jason writes,
This is conjecture. There are plenty of references within the Mosaic Law that prescribe submission and, as you note, Paul said, “the Law.”
The primary support for the priests was from the tithe (which is what Paul cites), so I think it is imprecise to insist the “only” command to tithe comes from Moses. We all agree something God directs (commands, ordains) is binding.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Scalia,
Yes, it is conjecture as I said so myself (because no one can agree on what text Paul is appealing to in the OT since there is no OT text that directly addresses what Paul is addressing). But that does not mean it is false. What is not conjecture is that the books of Moses were referred to as “the Law” for shorthand. So if something was contained in Genesis but not in the Mosaic Covenant itself, it would still be part of “the Law” just as the Gospels are part of what we call the “New Testament” even though the events recorded in the Gospels predate the New Covenant.
I don’t understand your second paragraph. Priests served under the Law, so I don’t see how what you are saying challenges my point: While we see tithing mentioned prior to the Law, the first and only time we see it commanded by God is in the Law.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Jason writes,
By my count, Paul uses the term “the law” some 128 times in his epistles. Except for references to “the law of Christ” and others pertaining to New Testament “law,” almost all, if not all, of references to the law refer directly to Moses. There are, perhaps, some ante-law references, but I have not found one clear example. If Paul either overwhelmingly or never uses that term except in reference to Moses, the textual evidence is decidedly in favor of the conclusion Paul is being specific, not generic. That implies, at least, that a citation of the binding nature of the Law with respect to a transcovenantal principle does not imply we should implement every regulation associated with that principle.
It challenges your point because the NT passages explicitly informs us God has directed us to support the NT ministry on the same principle as support for the priests. The “principle” of support for the priesthood was tithing. Hence, we have a non-Mosaic statement that God ordains tithing.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Scalia,
I wouldn’t think this would be a controversial point. Do you agree or disagree that the Pentateuch as a whole was referred to as “the Law,” such as when it is said how Jesus showed the disciples everything that was written of him in the law, the prophets, and the writings (the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures)?
But to be honest, however you may answer that question, and whether I am right or wrong on that point, is irrelevant to the point at hand. Even if I agreed with you that Paul was referring to some law within the Mosaic Law itself, what would it matter? As I’ve said, the issue is not the mere quotation of the Mosaic Law. The issue is when it is appealed to as if it were binding on Christians. Clearly Paul did not think the Law was binding on Christians, and if he had in mind one of the provisions of the Mosaic Law when he wrote 1 Cor 14, clearly he was not referencing the Mosaic Law because he thought it was binding on the church. He was showing that his teaching on the issue at hand was consistent with the teaching found in the Law. I could do the same thing on the topic of homosexuality to show that the NT teaching on the immorality of homosexuality is consistent with the OT teaching, but that would not mean I am saying the OT teaching applies to the church. Once again, I am addressing those who appeal to the Mosaic Law for binding doctrinal instruction on the topic of giving for the church. If an individual is not appealing to those passages for that purpose, then this post does not pertain to them.
Jason
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Jason, yes I agree with you that The Law can be a generic reference to the Pentateuch. I dispute Paul was being generic in 1 Cor. 14.
You write,
Jason, I don’t think you’re being dishonest. 😉
You earlier asked, “[W]hat would it matter?” Yes, Jason, what does it matter that the principle enunciated is “consistent” with the Law if its citation were not deemed authoritative? The manner in which Paul cited the Law is narrower than a message of consistency (e.g. his citation of heathen poets). He clearly uses it as an authoritative source to build his arguments.
Let’s look at another section of the heretofore-cited passage from 1 Cor. 9:
1 Corinthians 9
7. [Consider this:] What soldier at any time serves at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of the fruit of it? Who tends a flock and does not partake of the milk of the flock?
8. Do I say this only on human authority and as a man reasons? Does not the Law endorse the same principle?
9. For in the Law of Moses it is written, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the corn. Is it [only] for oxen that God cares?(A)
10. Or does He speak certainly and entirely for our sakes? [Assuredly] it is written for our sakes, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher ought to thresh in expectation of partaking of the harvest.
Paul is arguing in defense of the principle of material support/reward for service/labor by asking a rhetorical questions. He then disclaims his own authority and human reasoning. The “binding” nature of his argument is a direct appeal to the Law. The Law proscribes the muzzling of an ox while treading the corn, THEREFORE, a minister cannot be prevented from making a living off his calling. It is precisely the binding nature of the Law that turns Paul’s argument away from being arbitrary.
We differ here too. You mean prior to the writing of the NT, Christians would illegitimately argue that homosexuality is an abomination to God? The decree, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman…” is not binding because it came from the Law? We are nowhere told prior to the Law that such behavior is proscribed.
I think part of the disagreement here is what we consider abolished in the cross. Nonetheless, I think it is untenable to argue that all precepts in the Mosaic covenant are non-binding.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Scalia,
I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same things here. If Paul believed the New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Covenant (as I think he did), then he would not appeal to a law from the Mosaic Covenant as if that law were binding on the church. That would be like a cop in CA citing me for breaking a traffic law in Montana.
This is not to say the Law is not an authority. Of course it is. It is divine revelation, and hence it is an authority. The question is whether or not the authority of the law is directly applicable to Christians. And the answer to that question is no. Can we learn from the Law? Yes. Can we derive principles from the Law? Yes. Can we appeal to the Law to show that God has been consistent in His revelation? Yes. But if we are appealing to the Law to say Christians must do X because the Law says we must do X, then we are misusing the Law. And that is what I see people doing when it comes to tithing.
I disagree that Paul was “disclaim[ing] his own authority and human reasoning.” Why would give several good reasons for his position, only to disown them simply because Scripture says the same thing? He is using the Law to confirm that what he is teaching is consistent with principles laid out in divine revelation. That’s why he says, “Does not the Law say the same?” In other words, the Law agrees with him. And since the Law was given by divine revelation, its teachings carry more weight than mere human wisdom, even if the covenant itself is no longer binding (in the same way that we can gain political wisdom from prior constitutions, even though they are no longer in force today as the law of the land).
As for homosexuality, your objection seems to be confusing the penning of New Covenant teachings with the teachings themselves. Before one book of NT Scripture was ever written the apostles and leaders of the church were teaching the laws of the New Covenant, one of which was that homosex is sinful. So one did not need to read Romans before they could know homosex was immoral.
Yes, I think we are disagreeing over this issue. I hold that covenants are either in force or not in force, whereas you seem to hold to the popular (but I think, mistaken) view that some portions of the Mosaic Law are still in force (usually identified as the moral laws of the covenant). I address that topic elsewhere, and we can discuss it in more length if you like, but even if I agreed with you that portions of the Mosaic Covenant are still in effect, the passages in question are not part of the moral law (whether we are talking about the tithing passages, or even the ox passage), and thus would not be binding on Christians.
Jason
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Jason asks,
For the same reason Peter subordinated his eyewitness account of Christ’s transfiguration to a “more sure word of prophecy.” Human reasoning may coincide or diverge from the Scriptures. Paul’s reasoning alone, per his argument, is insufficient. The fact a dead clock may “right” two times a day does not mean we should rely upon it. Similarly, the fact Paul’s reasoning may coincide with a biblical mandate does not render his thoughts authoritative. The authority upon which his argument is clinched is The Law of Moses (per his own words).
This undermines Paul’s argument. If the Law he cites is no longer in force, then there is no command to financially support the ministry. The basis of the command is the Law of Moses, but if it is no longer in effect, then its only value is historical. We are no more under obligation to support the ministry than we are to follow the Articles of Confederation. That makes the decree to which Paul appeals voluntary. A Christian is free to avoid such a contribution because the covenant is no longer applicable. If Paul had simply said, “Thus saith the Lord,” nothing else need be written. He didn’t say that, nor did he argue that he was appealing to a law predating Moses. If his argument doesn’t turn on the Law, then his case is unsupported.
No confusion, Jason. I understood that before I posted my previous reply. I merely asked rhetorically whether citing Leviticus 18 would be illegitimate in the early church. Your answer, of course, is yes (in the sense of its applicability).
With respect to the covenant issue, you are already aware systemic differences entail very long, time-consuming arguments. You also know I normally jump into such discussions, but my time is extremely limited lately. Maybe when I get some more wiggle room we can explore that further. That said, I think the above arguments suffice to demonstrate the thrust of where I’m coming from.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Just a thought:
Melchisedec. It all flows back to him. Abraham’s tithe to him, and even Levi’s tithe through Abraham’s loins, as it read in Hebrews, all flows back to him. And we know that the Son of God is forever consecrated as a priest after the order of Melchisedec.
From that vantage point, I’ve always understood tithing to be a New Testament matter (with the OT Law being there for typology), if and since, our Melchisedec (if you will) Jesus Christ, Who has ascended into the heavens, is the One Who is really receiving the tithe.
The appeal then, therefore, to the Mosaic covenant is only for the sake of types and shadows the better covenant to come.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 6:27 am
Scalia,
You cited this verse:
“I Corinthians 14 (Amplified)
34. The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.”
It is my understanding that this verse is referring to the the Talmud and not the Mosaic Law. Correct me if I am wrong but is that teaching found in the Mosaic Law?
Just wondering….
Tiny
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Jason, I do not think a person is unsaved if they do not tithe. I think the more incisive question would be why a believer would not want to, at a minimum, give 10% of their increase today? If the OT and NT are for our examples then giving is self-evident. The giving even under the NT appears to be well more than 10% since it was the selling of land, goods, etc.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Hi, Tiny!
I’m afraid my answer may evoke a debate over what it means for women to “keep quiet” in church. Such a debate is beyond the scope of this thread. We are discussing whether or not a precept of Moses (namely, tithing) is applicable to Christians. My reply, therefore, will be restricted to that subject. Of course you’re not asking for a debate. I just want to make it clear that is something we should avoid.
As I noted above, Paul uses the term The Law approximately 128 times in his epistles. If the passage you reproduced is a citation of the Talmud (probably unwritten rabbinic discussions — the Talmud was mostly unwritten at that time), that would appear to be the only time he associates “the Law” with a non-textual tradition. Again, as I have previously stated, that appears unlikely. If my analysis is correct, the evidence is decidedly in favor of the Mosaic Law.
In order to adequately answer your question, we must first determine what we are looking for. Are we looking for an Old Testament (OT) verse commanding women to be silent at public gatherings, or are we looking for commandments mandating “a secondary and subordinate place”? There doesn’t appear to be any OT verse that prescribes silence (by women) at public gatherings. Consequently, what the Law ordains is a secondary and subordinate place for women. There is, of course, much evidence for this from Moses, such as:
Numbers 30 (Amplified)
10. And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath
11. And her husband heard it and did not oppose or prohibit her, then all her vows and every pledge with which she bound herself shall stand.
12. But if her husband positively made them void on the day he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her.
13. Every vow and every binding oath to humble or afflict herself, her husband may establish it or her husband may annul it.
Given that, one may observe (as Jason has) that the “submission command” can also be found in Genesis (He – the husband – shall rule over you); and I have replied that “the Law” is overwhelmingly, perhaps invariably, connected to Moses.
Regards.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:51 am
I agree with Jason. The principle that a person or creature should be allowed to take sustenance from its labor didn’t originate with Paul, it comes from the Law and the Law comes from God. But that doesn’t mean the Law directly applies. It’s like citing a New York law when you live in California – it’s persuasive but not binding precedent. You can appeal to the Law for a weekly day of worship and rest, but that doesn’t mean the day of the week and other rules apply to the Christian sabbath.
Yes, a pastor has a right (not an obligation) to make money from his ministry. No, there isn’t a specific percentage or collection method.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Scalia,
I don’t doubt that Paul recognized the Law as a higher authority than his own reasoning, but that’s not at all the same as “disowning” his reasons. And I have no reason to believe that Paul saw his arguments as insufficient without the Law (it’s not as though reason is worthless unless confirmed by revelation). But if He could appeal to divine revelation to support his reasons, then surely he would (and did) do so.
I disagree that if the Law is a defunct covenant that Paul’s argument lacks force, or that there would be no command to support the ministry. Paul could issue the command himself. As an apostle and articulator of the New Covenant, he had the authority to issue such a command wholly apart from what the Law did or did not say. Even if there was no provision for supporting the ministry under the Mosaic Covenant, Paul had the authority (both in his office and as a conduit of divine revelation) to issue such a command as part of the New Covenant. So no, no Christian is free from supporting the ministry because the New Covenant, via Paul, requires it.
Of course it would be illegitimate for the church to apply the Mosaic law regarding homosexuality. Or do you suggest that the church should be killing homosexuals? How do you say the Mosaic command not to commit homosexual acts is binding, but the punishment for breaking the command is not? I can easily resolve this tension by agreeing with Paul et al that the Mosaic Covenant is defunct. While God’s moral law was contained in the Law, and while His moral law never changes, we are subject to the moral law as it is contained and expressed in the covenant in force now (New Covenant), not the moral law as expressed in a covenant that has already expired (Mosaic Covenant).
Just because both covenants contain similar provisions (moral law) does not mean that part of the old covenant is still binding on us. No, we are bound to the moral law as expressed in the New Covenant since the New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Covenant. This is similar to how there are overlaps between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but the authority for structuring our government the way it is (in the areas common to both documents) is derived from the authority of the Constitution, not the authority of the Articles (which were superseded by the Constitution). Or once again, my traffic law analogy: While both CA and MT have a law that one must stop at red lights, if I run a red light I am prosecuted under CA’s law, not MT’s, even though the legal code of both states contains the same law.
There is no Biblical basis for thinking that some parts of the Mosaic Covenant are still binding on us while others are not. Agreements are either in force, or not in force. The agreement God made at Sinai with the children of Israel was only for the Jews, was not intended to be the final covenant, and stood as an inseparable unit. We can’t piece-meal it apart and say that some portions are binding today while others are not. I deal with the Mosaic Law in detail at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/law.htm.
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Aaron,
I think the Mel connection is weak for a doctrine which says tithing is obligatory (not to be confused with “giving,” which is obligatory). Neither God nor Mel commanded Abe to give 10% of the spoils of war to Mel. Abe chose to do so. And from what I have read (but have not personally researched), the practice of tithing (at least spoils of war) was a pagan practice, so it would be no surprise for a recently converted pagan (Abe) to do such a thing.
I should add that to say the practice was “pagan” does not mean it was bad. It just means that it was practiced in religious circles that did not worship YHWH. YHWH later commanded the Israelites to give several different tithes under the Mosaic Law, however, thus making it involuntary and part of the YHWH cult. But now that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant, and given the fact that the New Covenant does not contain a provision for tithing, we are no longer commanded to tithe. We are only commanded to give, but the amount we give is up to us. But as I said in my post, when we look at how the early church gave of their finances, giving 10% of our own is the least we can do.
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm
James,
I agree. This is the same point I ended my post with. I don’t know why a believer would not want to give at least 10%.
The purpose of my post is twofold: (1) To dispel the common misconception that the Mosaic law only required Israelites to give 10% of their income (my main purpose); (2) To motivate people to stop appealing to the Mosaic Law’s teaching on tithing as if it were binding on the church. Granted, a lot more could be said to support both of these points, but I did not intend for this to be a paper. Anyone who interprets what I said to mean that Christians do not need to give would have to seriously misconstrue my words (not that you have).
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Arthur,
It’s not often that your mind and my mind are aligned, but this is one of those rare occasions. 🙂
I would dispute one minor point, however. I don’t think “the principle that a person or creature should be allowed to take sustenance from its labor” originated with the Law. I think such a principle is derived from common wisdom, and this common wisdom was incorporated into the Law. The commonness of the wisdom is why Paul could appeal to all the examples he did and fully expect for the Corinthians to nod their heads in agreement. I doubt you would disagree with this point. I think it’s just the way you worded it.
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm
While I agree that no direct command existed from Mel to Abe or even from God to Abe in that matter, I would point out that in Hebrews 7, it explains, in present tense, that Mel is still receiving tithes in heavenlies.
The question is how? Someone, at the time Hebrews was written, was tithing, and as a living, inspired document, it seems to be applicable to us in this New Covenant era.
Here’s the verse:
Hebrews 7:8,
And here men that die [i.e. Levites/priests] receive tithes; but there [i.e. in eternity/heaven] he [i.e. Melchisedec] receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. (KJV)
In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. (ESV)
In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. (NIV)
and in one case tithes are received by mortal men, while in the other by him who is affirmed to be alive. (NET)
The tithe is still occuring, even during the New Covenant era, since Mel and his priesthood are eternal, and Jesus our Savior is a priest in his order. Somehow, someway, Jesus, through His High Priesthood, is still receiving tithes. The only this appears to be so is if His New Covenant church is tithing.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm
You’ll notice that not all translations repeat the word “receive.” That’s because the Greek word for “receive” only appears once in the text (not twice), and it is connected with “mortal men,” not he “of whom it is witnessed lives.” (and this is clear because the verb is a third-person plural, which does not apply to the single person, Mel).
Also, it is a common mistake to think because the present tense is used it must refer to something happening right now. There are many different uses of the present, not all of which refer to events happening in the present. Greek tenses do not so much convey time as they do the kind of action in view (called aktionsart). Here, I would argue that the author of Hebrews is using the present tense form to convey a gnomic truth (such as “candy is sweet”), not a tensed truth per se.
Also, the author is not saying Jesus is Mel. He’s only saying that he has a priesthood like Mel’s: (1) it is superior to the Levitical priesthood, (2) it is unending, (3) it is not based on family lineage. He’s not saying that Jesus receives tithes just like Mel did. That is reading something into the text that is not there.
Jason
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm
It would be awesome to be able to tithe that..the flipside is that they did not have an income tax in the Bible days.
Even under the Romans, they did not have a graduated income tax; so they were able to give more in tithes.
Following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, our government instituted the income tax in 1916, and it was only single digits back then.
Now, to pay a 23% tithe – on top of 40% federal & state income taxes, plus 9% sales tax, you would be left with only 27% of your income.
So the less that Uncle Sam steals from me, the more I would love to give to the work of God.
🙂
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 1:24 am
Hi, Jason. You write:
Let’s look again at what Paul said:
“Do I say this merely on human authority?” – NIV
“Do I say these things as a mere man?” – NKJV
And from the translation you often use:
“Do I say these things on human authority?” – ESV
Although I agree Paul was a “conduit” of divine revelation, he clearly states he isn’t speaking from human authority. As I stated above, he could have said, “Thus saith the Lord,” but he didn’t. The authority to which he appealed is God Himself through the Law of Moses.
You continue:
Then you unintentionally disagree with Paul himself, for his words clearly avoid an appeal to his own authority. Although I agree he did have the authority as an inspired apostle to command giving, he does not do so here. Consequently, your observation his personal command is what he could have done is immaterial for the obvious reason that ISN’T what he did.
You repeat an earlier observation:
Then any appeal to “MT’s” law is irrelevant. Since we are repeating earlier observations, I’ll insert again my appeal to a dead clock. The fact it may coincide with my “living” clock twice a day has no bearing on its trustworthiness; and any law that is of no force or effect upon me has no bearing on what I should do. The law is either relevant or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then an appeal to it is merely an expression of an appellant’s preference (or bias). For example, hunting on Sunday is illegal in Alabama. What does that have to do with CA? Only those who want to ban hunting on Sunday in CA will cite such a law, but it bears no relevance to those who disagree with it for the obvious reason that Al has no jurisdiction over CA. A hunter will simply say, “So what? I don’t live in Alabama. When I move there, they can tell me what to do.” California citizen Jason Dulle might say, “Am I telling you to ban hunting on Sunday on my authority? Does not even Alabama do the same?” Apart from some head scratching, you might get a, “Huh??” How about, “Do I tell you to ban the death penalty on my authority? Does not Europe do the same?” Europe’s laws don’t apply to us. If you’re citing your authority, then what Europe does is irrelevant. If you’re not citing your authority, then your argument is baseless.
Does Paul merely cite the Law for advisory reasons? Look again:
1 Corinthians 9 (Amplified)
9. For in the Law of Moses it is written, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the corn. Is it [only] for oxen that God cares?
10. Or does He speak certainly and entirely for our sakes? [Assuredly] it is written for our sakes, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher ought to thresh in expectation of partaking of the harvest.
The ESV states, “Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake…”
Paul, without ambiguity, tells us that this legal text was written for our sake; because God isn’t concerned about oxen so much as He is concerned about the New Testament ministry. It appears to turn language on its head to insist that a law written for Christians is really for Jews under the Old Covenant.
You continue:
This underscores part of the problem with this thread. What permeates your entire presentation is the insistence that no part of the Law, per se, is applicable to Christians; but if that is the case, then of course it follows that an appeal to any aspect of the Law is mistaken. It equally follows that if the Law is applicable, then an appeal to it is valid. What is relevant, then, isn’t tithing (be it 10% or 23%); it is the applicability of the Law.
If Paul is the “conduit” of divine revelation and was recognized as such, then an appeal to an inapplicable law is superfluous. It is immaterial whether God or Caesar authored such a law. An inapplicable law is inapplicable. Compulsoriness, then, can only logically follow from another source, not the cited legislation. In the examples I have provided, Paul chose not to make his apostleship the ground for the command. Consequently, his argument is baseless if the Law is inapplicable.
You write:
This, coupled with your earlier “[t]here is no Biblical basis..,” are of course observations you are perfectly entitled to. I do not share them. Your linked paper converts to a PDF format of 16 pages. I consider it to be a good presentation and defense of your views, and it is a good source of information to either the choir or to the uninitiated who seek to explore the issue further, but it is not detailed, in my estimation. It may be the case you have read the works of many theologians who disagree with your views and after digesting their arguments, you have found them unpersuasive. However, your paper evidences no such interaction. It contains standard, well-known arguments that are thoroughly contested by covenant theologians. Perhaps you deal with counter arguments elsewhere. If you have, please provide the link thereto.
I don’t want to get into a battle of links, but for those who would like to explore counter arguments, I recommend, among a host of others, Welty’s, A Response to Mike Adams’s In Defense of the New Covenant.
Covenant arguments notwithstanding, Paul’s appeal to the law in the heretofore-cited passages and standard argument analysis demonstrate the authority upon which his arguments rest, other than his claim to inspiration, is in the Law.
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Scalia,
I just don’t understand your reasoning when it comes to Paul’s appeal to the Law in 1 Cor 9. Of course he recognizes the Law as a higher authority than reason because he rightly understands that revelation trumps reason (even revelation that is no longer binding because it is part of a covenant that God has chosen to replace with a New Covenant), but just because he cites revelation does not mean he is disowning his reason, or that He thinks the Law is binding on Christians. Paul is appealing to reason as his first witness, and to the Law as a 2nd witness to make his point (and he right considers the 2nd witness to be the clincher since it was inspired).
By saying “I disagree that if the Law is a defunct covenant that Paul’s argument lacks force, or that there would be no command to support the ministry,” no, I am not “unintentionally disagree[ing] with Paul himself.” I recognize that he did not just make up a command to give. Indeed, it would be impossible for him to do so since such a command had already existed in prior revelation. At best Paul could command that the practice continue, which he did (which Jesus also did). But we are getting afield from the reason I even brought this up. You had said that if “the Law he cites is no longer in force, then there is no command to financially support the ministry. … We are no more under obligation to support the ministry than we are to follow the Articles of Confederation.” I argued that this does not follow because the New Covenant has its own laws, and Paul had the authority to command giving. So even if the Law did not command giving, the New Covenant could have. Jesus told us to give, and as a minister of the New Covenant, Paul was saying the same thing.
I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor 9:10 that “for our sakes” specifically means “New Testament ministry.” I would contend that Paul’s point is that it was written for the benefit of humans more so than the benefit of animals (without regard to covenant context). In other words, the purpose of this command was not merely to help animals, but to teach humans a principle that those who engage in X should be able to make their living from X. It is that principle that Paul is appealing to. He is not saying God gave the command about feeding oxen within the Mosaic Covenant because He intended it to serve as the command to support the ministry under the New Covenant. Indeed, not only does it not make any sense to give a command to support the ministers of the New Covenant in the Mosaic Covenant, but it makes even less sense to couch that command within a command about feeding animals! While ministers may feel like they are worked like animals, they are not animals. If God was going to give commands in the Mosaic Law that were intended to apply to New Covenant ministers, wouldn’t it be more likely that it would be the texts which talked about financially supporting priests? Of course, Paul did appeal to this practice as well. Again, showing that there is a precedent.
You write, “What permeates your entire presentation is the insistence that no part of the Law, per se, is applicable to Christians; but if that is the case, then of course it follows that an appeal to any aspect of the Law is mistaken.” Again, I disagree. It does not follow that if the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, and thus not binding on Christians, that no appeal can be made to the Law. It can be appealed to in order to teach us various moral principles. For example, the holiness laws no longer apply, but we can still glean from them the principle that God’s people must disassociate themselves from evil, and thus it is entirely legitimate to appeal to the Mosaic Covenant. But this is not at all the same as saying the laws of the Mosaic Covenant are binding on us. We are under the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant, and thus we are bound to the laws of the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was only made with Israel, designed to govern their life in the land of Canaan, and was planned to be replaced by a New Covenant.
The center of our disagreement is on whether any part of the Mosaic Law still applies to humans. It seems that you not only hold that the moral law still applies, but other laws as well. I contend that while we may be able to conceptually categorize different parts of the Mosaic Law, such divisions only exist in the mind, not in Scripture. The Bible speaks of the Mosaic Law being obsolete, not certain sections of it. The whole covenant stood and falls together. The New Covenant is not an add-on to the Mosaic Covenant, or a reworking of the Mosaic Covenant. It is a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. You don’t agree, and thus you and I will not agree on this issue. But I do find it interesting that while you think the Mosaic Law is still binding on Christians, you don’t think the 23% tithe is binding on us. On what basis do you conclude this? You can’t say it’s because the tithing laws were not part of the moral law, because you also see the law about feeding oxen as binding on the church and that was not part of the moral law. So how do you choose which parts of the Law are for us and which one’s are not?
Jason
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Jonathan,
Good point about taxation. I don’t know what taxation was like under the Romans, but when Israel was a theocracy, they did not have taxes to pay. Everything they were required to pay was for the support of the tabernacle, priests, and poor. I can’t recall off-hand if there were any small taxes levied to support government officials, but I don’t think so.
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Jason writes,
And I have an even more difficult time understanding your inability to understand my reasoning. You don’t have to agree with my reasoning to understand it, and your inability to understand it is why this dialog continues. What part of the following don’t you understand?
Although I agree Paul was a “conduit” of divine revelation, he clearly states he isn’t speaking from human authority. As I stated above, he could have said, “Thus saith the Lord,” but he didn’t.
The fact he could have is not evidence he did, especially since he claimed he was not speaking from human authority. I don’t know how it could be made plainer.
You keep insisting the Law Paul cited does not apply to us in the face of his explicit words:
Or does He speak certainly and entirely for our sakes? [Assuredly] it is written for our sakes…
The OT passage he cites was explicitly written for our sake, so you cannot logically argue it doesn’t apply to us. This passage isn’t merely for “nonbinding” revelation purposes. It was written CERTAINLY and ENTIRELY for our sake. You’re attempting to fit your paradigm into the text. The text explicitly contradicts your paradigm.
Since Paul doesn’t speak from his own authority, and since Paul cites a passage from the Law he asserts was written ENTIRELY for our sake, and since it is within that OT passage we are told, “YOU SHALL NOT…,” the compulsoriness here of giving is based upon the Mosaic text. What is there not to understand??
What is most incomprehensible is your extended insistence “for our sakes” doesn’t specifically refer to the ministry. Although I believe that is patently false (and very easily refutable), what does it matter? Whether we are commanded to give in general or to give specifically to the ministry, the fact remains that this command from the Law of Moses was written for Christians – ENTIRELY. Thus your premise that the Law of Moses cannot be appealed to as binding upon Christians is mistaken.
For sake of further clarity:
1) Paul, in 1 Cor. 9, nowhere commands giving to the ministry from his authority or apostleship (see vs. 8).
2) Paul cites the Law as a higher authority to prove the necessity of giving.
3) Paul states that Law was written entirely for our sake (Christians).
4) Being written for Christians makes it applicable to Christians.
5) Said Law, which applies to Christians, is compulsory (You shall not).
6) Christians are commanded by the Law to give.
7) Therefore, giving by Christians is compulsory.
Every step is taken directly from the text. In order to demonstrate any mistake I have made, you must either show I have misread the text or that my logical inferences are mistaken.
Such appeals are not limited to Paul; Peter makes the same type of appeal in his first epistle:
1 Peter 1
15. But as the One Who called you is holy, you yourselves also be holy in all your conduct and manner of living.
16. For it is written, You shall be holy, for I am holy.
In other words, you should live holy because the scripture says you should (Lev. 11:44). He didn’t say, “You should live holy because I, as the conduit of divine revelation, command you to live holy, as can also be found in the non-binding law given to another people under a defunct covenant (which non-binding covenant you are free to ignore, but not me).” He said we are to live holy BECAUSE (for) the Law commands us to; and if it is legitimate to base a holiness command from the Law, then one’s premise that one cannot legitimately cite the binding nature of X because it comes from the Law is without warrant. It is logically indistinct from saying, “You Californians shall not hunt on Sundays, for it is written in the statutes of Alabama, thou shalt not hunt on Sundays.”
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Paul said let everyone give “not grudgingly or of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.” I think this sums up a lot of Old vs. New Covenant thinking. Many of our churches put tithing right along side repentance, baptism, etc. as “requirements” for salvation, and I could not disagree more. Likewise, the oft repeated “God will bless you, your cup will runneth over, etc.” if one gives is just as false. That person may be giving for the sole reason of following a law that he is actually not under. No one is justified following any law. The spiritual man follows the moral laws because those things edify his spirit, and draws him closer to God. If the flesh wins a battle in this ongoing war, he will lose spiritual ground, he will be remorseful, but he is not condemned, any more than the Pharisse was justified. Giving for the sake of thankfulness, for ‘laying up treasures in heaven’, for the spiritual joy it can bring, is the reason to give. That amount is to be determined by what a “man purposes in his heart.” Period. I know many preachers will disagree, but I think they would probably wind up collecting more if they taught it this way instead of always hearkening back to either Moses, Abe, or Mel.
James
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Scalia,
I did not mean I do not understand it, literally. I mean I don’t understand how you reason that just because Paul appeals to divine revelation, that it must mean he was disavowing his reasons, rather than meaning he saw it as a capstone to his reasons that would put to silence anyone not already convinced up to that point. I don’t think that follows, but we’ve hit an impasse on this.
The operative word is “apply.” You think that for the Mosaic Law to apply to us it must be binding on us. I disagree. I think it can apply to us in the 1 Cor 10:6,11 sense without being legally binding on us. It is divine revelation that revealed the mind and purpose of God, so it’s not as if once the covenant has expired it becomes useless. It contains the foundation for the New Covenant. It contains the prophecies of the Messiah. It provides us with godly principles and moral admonition. It is definitely useful to us, but that does not mean it is binding (similar to how the courts of one state will use the decisions of another state to help decide cases in their own state). That’s why I don’t find your approach of “the NT writers cited it, therefore the covenant is still binding” to be persuasive. Of course they cited it. It was divine revelation. But that doesn’t mean they thought we were under both the Mosaic Covenant as well as the New Covenant.
Other than that, I don’t have much else to say on this topic because I think it’s clear that we are not going to agree, and this topic is an exegetically entailing one. If the subject of this post was “does the Law apply to us” perhaps I may be willing to bat it out more, but it’s not. And I’ve written on this topic elsewhere. I know you’ve read it and are not convinced. That’s ok. I’ve learned to live with the fact that not everyone will agree with me.
I am still interested to know how you go about determining what parts of the Mosaic Covenant are still in effect (and thus binding on NT believers), and whether or not the tithing laws are part of the covenant that is still in effect. If you don’t believe they are still in effect, why not?
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Jason, I can live with disagreement. It’s not as if this is the first time we’ve disagreed. 🙂
I have already observed that the issue is not tithing, but whether any part of the Law still applies to the Church. If not, then tithing, per se, is superfluous. If so, then it cannot be dismissed. I think a case can be made for tithing outside our disagreement over covenants, and…you are right — we most certainly disagree over the Mosaic Law. However, I have also said I am way too busy to engage in a back-and-forth over that topic. Such an issue is systemic and entails very long, in-depth analysis. I just do not have the time due to an extremely hectic schedule. I can, however, provide links, but what then is the point of discussion if we throw links at one another? 😉
Best wishes.
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Jason, there is something you mentioned in your last post I forgot to reply to. You write,
If this is why you do not find my approach persuasive, then it is easy to see the problem.
I think your judicial decision example is disanalogous. No San Mateo County judge will say, “The Orange County superior court decision was written certainly and entirely for the citizens of San Mateo County.” The same is true for decisions made in other states. A judge may rely upon the reasoning of a court in another jurisdiction, but s/he will never say a decision in another jurisdiction is written “entirely” for h/ers. Since Paul unequivically stated the cited legislation was written entirely for Christians, the judicial decision analogy fails.
LikeLike
April 28, 2011 at 11:17 am
Scalia,
Once again, we disagree on what Paul means by “it was written for our sakes.”
Jason
LikeLike
April 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Wow !! Another hot topic and another “battle” between Scalia and Jason ….
Yes Scalia, you’re favorite pest is back….
I believe we are not bound by the law and its ordinances and that includes tithing. We cannot pick and choose which parts of the law we are going to follow, because if we want to keep any part of the law, we are then bound to keep the whole law.
Each Christian is supposed to give generously as he purposes in his own heart. That’s the principle we are to give by. If some want to use 10% or 23% as a guideline I suppose they can, but no one is under this obligation as the NT also teaches that we should not give under obligation.
It’s not how much you give that matters to God, it’s How you give. If I’m going to gnash my teeth every time I put money in the offering plate, I might as well keep it in my pocket and use it for something else because it worthless in God’s eyes.
Tithing has been used by some churches to bring condemnation on people who are not putting their 10% (before tax) in the plate. This is wrong and is based on a misapplication of the scriptures. I feel sorry for people trapped in this situation. These types of churches are usually deep into legalism and self-righteousness and bible-believing Christians should run away from these prisons that some call churches – sorry.
As far as the Mosaic law goes, I think it is clear from the book of Acts that we are not bound by it. When the first Gentiles were converted they were not commanded to tithe as I recall. Also, Paul never taught obligatory tithing as a practice for the church.
Naz
LikeLike
April 28, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Naz,
Have our battles become epic? 🙂 I think we agree on more than we disagree on, and when we do battle, it’s always with good sportsmanship.
I think you and I are largely in agreement on the issue of tithing. I would not go so far as to say, however, that “it’s not how much you give that matters to God, it’s how you give.” I would contend that God cares about both. He wants us to give as much as possible, which is why He pours out more blessings on those who give more than He does on those who give less. But he also wants us give whatever we give, cheerfully. Perhaps you are using the “not X but Y” formula to emphasize the importance of Y over X without actually negating the importance of X. If so, then I find it more agreeable. But I still think one should give even if they can’t do it cheerfully because we are still commanded to give. It’s better to break one command (to give cheerfully) than it is to break two (to give, and to give cheerfully).
Jason
LikeLike
April 29, 2011 at 7:08 am
Jason, I see your point and I will concede to your reasoning.
I agree that God wants us to be generous in our giving, so could we “re-write” the scripture and say that “God loves a cheerful and generous giver” ?
Generosity is a critical component in our giving, so not being generous shows a lack of sincerity in our giving. I believe God is looking at the intentions of our heart. I think that when we give give cheerfully that generosity will flow from that.
Naz
LikeLike
April 29, 2011 at 7:43 am
Jason, by the way. After reading the posts by you and Scalia, I would say that you have “won” this battle hands down in my opinion.
Sorry Scalia, please take no offense, but this discussion to me is so similar to the baptism discussion marathon we had a while back.
You seem to be so intent on following the letter but cannot see that you are missing the intent or the spirit of the scriptures. I hope you can re-visit some of Jason’s responses and reconsider the basis for your arguments.
God Bless you Scalia.
Naz
LikeLike
April 29, 2011 at 10:34 am
Naz,
I agree that a cheerful giver will usually be a generous giver.
Jason
LikeLike
April 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I have a lot of respect for Jason’s knowledge and his devotion to the work of God. As he has observed, we agree far more often than not. As you note, we do disagree on occasion. 🙂
Hi, Naz. It is very good to “see” you again. I hope you are well.
I agree – surprise! We cannot pick and choose. The Scriptures are our guide (2 Tim. 3:16); they are essential in the formulation of doctrine.
Much of the back-and-forth revolves around a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, etc., are systemic explanations of biblical data. Under Covenant Theology, God’s decrees are eternal and indissoluble. Under the Covenant of Works, man was (and is) incapable of obtaining righteousness either within himself or through the Levitical priesthood – as the OT itself states. The one exception is, of course, our Lord Jesus. He fulfilled every requirement of the Law and through His death, burial, and resurrection (Grace), all mankind may be perfected. Many aspects of the Law clearly foreshadowed Christ and He fulfilled them. Hence, God’s decree for a Sabbath did not change; the manner in which we fulfill it changed. God’s eternal Law is written on the hearts of Christians and we obey those decrees, not for perfection, but as expressions of our perfection in Christ.
One of the verses expressing your thought is James 2:10. Our position is the context demonstrates the opposite of what you contend. His readers were discriminating against the poor, and James pointed out that their observance of legal decrees made them offenders of every decree if they offended at that one point. He used the Law to show them their discrimination was wrong, not that the Law was abrogated. Works follow genuine faith, but works in themselves cannot perfect man.
I anticipate a lot of disagreement here, but this very brief explanation is not meant to provoke a debate over this. As I have stated above, I am way too busy to jump into systemic analysis. Perhaps Jason will open this up down the road. We can do “battle” then.
That’s fine, Naz. I’m not trying to outscore anybody. So long as you have been enriched by the discussion, I am happy.
None taken.
I can assure you I understand Jason’s position. I used to hold it myself. I respectfully dissent. I gently urge you to look up the basics of Covenant Theology, if you haven’t already. Even if you disagree with it, you’ll have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
All the best to you, Naz.
LikeLike
May 2, 2011 at 11:15 am
Scalia, thanks for the response. In reference to the battles and so on I was being lighthearted about it and I’m glad you took it so.
In regards to James 2:10, I was more thinking of Galatians 5:3 which is more where I was coming from in my thought about the law.
Another scripture that illustrates my point even stronger is :
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
I would also argue that even during the time of the old covenant, God showed grace to those who repented of their sins (a new covenant principle), such as David to name one. So although we can draw clear lines of when covenants came to exist and then be nullified, there seems to be some overlap there.
I am not an expert in covenant theology and I’m not sure how many people are. But I think whatever the correct understanding is, I believe it would be God’s intention the correct understanding would not be too difficult to understand for the average person. I say this to caution that in all of our theological endeavors and studies, while they are surely interesting and edifying, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is possible to dissect the scriptures and a theology so much that in the end we’ve missed the point. I am not saying that this is what you (Scalia)are doing, but I think this is an inherent danger in these types of complicated and in depth studies.
Solomon quoted it nicely when he said “much study is a weariness of the flesh” in Ecclesiastes 12:12.
And after this verse he summed it up nicely saying to “fear God and keep His commandments… and that God will bring every work into judgment, whether it is good or evil (paraphrase)..”
I don’t think in the end it will matter not so much whether we understood covenant theology, but more so if we understood the difference between good and evil.
Naz
LikeLike
May 2, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Hello again, Naz. I don’t think covenant theology is at all hard to understand, but the fact something is complicated does not mean it isn’t biblical (2 Pe. 3:16).
Belief systems, because they consist of many proof-texts, are by definition time-consuming to one degree or another. If you have competing and/or conflicting systems, a discussion will necessarily take a lot of time, even if the concepts are easily understood. That’s why I’ve tried to avoid a full-scale debate over this. I simply do not have the time.
Your citation of Galatians 5:3 illustrates my point. A prima facie reading of both passages (here and from James) give us an apparent inconsistency. Theologians analyze them in accordance with their belief systems. If their systemic views diverge, the explanations, counter explanations, rebuttals, etc., will take quite a bit of time. A cursory look at the relevant literature demonstrates this.
As to your “stronger” argument from 2 Cor. 3:6, this is addressed in the link I provided above.
Thanks again for the dialog.
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm
guys can I ask one question?are all of you members of UPC?
I’ve been following Jason’s works for quite sometime now and his works helped me so much in my Bible studies and to my faith…It is not that I believe his ideas about tithing I simply find his understanding more accurate and scriptural sound than anyone else..glory to God. I do believe that the law is no longer binding and it never was because the Law was for the Israel only and to those who live with them…keep on doing God’s works bro.jason…God bless you all guys!It is not that I believe in You it is because I can read it in my bible.:-)
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 10:23 pm
[…] to pay tithes and offerings according to the Law. It’s been estimated that this came to about 23 percent of total household income. Thus, the “capitalist” Israelites may have paid a greater portion of […]
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
My brother, I’f anyone wants to appeal to Abraham for tithes then it follows that one must also follow circumcision. The two are connected to Abraham. There is no record that Abraham ever paid tithe again … but he did circumcise his employees and son.
Like the old song “love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage” so to would tithes and circumcision.
LikeLike
November 3, 2013 at 5:51 am
[…] […]
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 6:34 am
I’ve quickly browsed through this article and applaud your effort on the biblical stance you take against tithing. However, how sad to read that you think Christians ought to give a minimum of 10%. The New Testament tells us that we must never give by compulsion. But if the church insists on a minimum 10% then God’s people are compelled in their giving! I see Scripture endorsing freewill offerings, according to Corinthians. God forbid that I should visit brothers and sisters in the Philippines who share 1 chicken between 20 people and compel them to donate a minimum tenth to the church’s kitty. There is no teaching in the Bible for God’s people to give a minimum, so I don’t think we ought to introduce one, don’t you?
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 7:47 am
Aldilover, you are mistaken. Please read through the comments section. Financial giving is a requirement.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 8:50 am
Hello there, I never said that financial giving wasn’t a requirement! I said that compelling Christians to give a minimum 10% isn’t Scriptural. The Scriptural pattern on giving is that each should give what he has purposed in his own heart (2 Corin 9:7) – which may be more or less than 10%. Yes, the New Testament exhorts God’s people to give to support Christians less fortunate than themselves, or to support those who minister God’s Word and are consequently unable to hold down a secular job at the same time; but there is no where in the New Testament where our giving must be a minimum 10%. Giving to God’s work is also dependent, of course, on each Christian having the financial ability to give. There are Christians in the world living in abject poverty, the apostle James calls them destitute – I don’t believe for a minute that if the only money they had was sufficient to buy food, that God would tell them to put their food money in the church kitty. 1 Tim 5:8 makes it clear that God’s people are to care financially for their own family first – and if they don’t, they’re worse than an unbeliever. The religious leaders in Mark 7:10-13 taught God’s people to give their money to God (i.e to their ministry) before giving it to their parents, but Jesus condemned this practice and said that in doing so, the religious leaders caused God’s people to break God’s command to honour their parents. Similarly, when the church today commands God’s people to put a minimum 10% in the church kitty, and not worry about their other needs, God would take care of their family, they’re perpetuating the same false doctrine that Jesus condemns in Mark 7. Incidentally, I’m not saying the author of this post is perpetuating false doctrine, I’m just saying that in the last paragraph, his opinion is for Christians to give a minimum 10%, but this is not an opinion based on Scripture. The Scripture allows each Christian to make up their own mind about how much they choose to give to the work of God. Every blessing. 🙂
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 9:00 pm
, I never said that financial giving wasn’t a requirement!
Yes, you did…
However, how sad to read that you think Christians ought to give a minimum of 10%. The New Testament tells us that we must never give by compulsion. But if the church insists on a minimum 10% then God’s people are compelled in their giving! I see Scripture endorsing freewill offerings, according to Corinthians. (Post 50)
You thus equate a requirement (which is what “ought to give” is) with compulsion. The basis of your attack on the 10% minimum (note, it’s not a maximum, just a minimum) is your abjuration of compulsion (which, again, you equate with a requirement). If the New Testament tells us that we must never give by compulsion (your own words), then it follows that there can be no requirement for us to give (which you now claim to have never said). It’s best to pay attention to your own words before you deny stating what you obviously said.
As you now acknowledge, giving is most certainly “compelled” in the New Testament, but your latest post demonstrates that you did not read the comments as I suggested. In them, you will find that I spell out explicitly why we are required to financially support the ministry by tithing.
Perhaps you’re hung up by the word “compelled.” By making tithing a requirement, you feel that people are being compelled (secured by force). What about the requirement to repent? Is that compulsion too? Jesus said, “Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish.” According to Acts 17:30,
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent
Are God’s commands requirements? Of course they are. If we don’t repent, we’ll perish, so there’s a very great personal incentive to repent, but real repentance also involves a willing surrender to the will of God. We then see repentance as an opportunity, not a burden. Likewise, the requirement that we sacrifice at least 10% of our income to further the kingdom of God is not a burden, but a joyful surrender to God’s will.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 11:44 pm
Aldilover,
To Scaliaalito’s point, we are compelled to give. To your point, we are not compelled to give any particular amount. No believer can decide whether or not to give, but they can decide how much to give.
As I said, I think tithing is a good principle of giving. And when I say I think Christians should give at least 10% of their income, I said it was based on the examples of giving in the NT in which Christians were giving sacrificially. The descriptions lead one to think they were giving more than a mere 10%. While there are times when a Christian may give less, most Christians (particularly in America) can give at least that much. And those who claim they can’t seem to be able to afford a $200 cell phone bill, $100 cable bill, a plasma TV, a newer car, trips to the movies, etc. Most Americans can afford what they want to afford, and those who can’t afford to give 10% can’t afford it because they don’t care to be able to afford it. And I think that is shameful. That’s not to say we make it a requirement to give 10%, but I do think it is good to establish it as a principle of baseline giving given the Biblical examples of giving. If people don’t meet that baseline, they are not sinning, and that’s between them and God. But I think we should be challenging people to give more, not less – particularly in a selfish and materialistic culture like ours.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:52 am
Hello Scaliaalito, well, first of all I put my hands up, I didn’t read all the comments suggested by you – truth beknown I’m very ill at the minute and don’t have the strength! I happened to be revisiting the tithing doctrine as a personal study and came across the article above, I scanned it quickly and when I read the last paragraph I just fancied responding to the idea that Scripture doesn’t – or at least I’ve never seen any where as yet – where God commands Christians to give a minimum 10%. Secondly, if my initial post gave the impression that financial giving wasn’t a requirement, then I made a mistake. Sorry about that. I must work on my grammar a bit more. I certainly do believe God expects His children to give financially if they have the wherewithal to do so. But in some situations, for example in extreme poverty, or if someone’s in prison being persecuted for their faith, then they’re not in a position to give financially to other needy brethren – and I don’t believe for a minute that God expects His children to give what they don’t have. It’s impossible to give finances if you don’t any.
I’m not sure if your question about repentance is rhetorical or whether you’d like me to reply, but hand on heart I agree that repentance is an obligation on all men, God indeed commands all men every where to repent. Well, have a blessed day Scaliaalito. I’d love to hang around and chat some more but I’m pretty tired and need to bob off now. All the best.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 4:24 am
Hello Jason, many thanks for your gracious reply. Your expansion on the article above helps clear things up for me. Hopefully when I’m feeling stronger I’ll sit down and read through your article more thoroughly. I agree with the sentiments in your latest post. I’ve just been reading 2 Corin 8 and 9 and the Macedonians indeed gave over and above what they were really able to give, as an expression of their love for other saints. But I like how Paul tells the Corinthians he isn’t commanding them to give to the point where they’re left with nothing, i.e. so that others are eased but they’re left burdened in financial straits (2 Corin 8:8 and vv 12-14). Well, the Scriptures have much to say about these things, don’t they. Paul says each Christian’s priority is to care financially for his immediate family, if not he’s worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8) – so if giving 10% would result in your family suffering, then God doesn’t expect 10%. His Word is clear about the body of Christ providing for the needs of their family first. This was initially taught by Jesus when He condemned the religious leaders for teaching that it was OK to stop supporting your family and give the money instead to the work of God as a gift to God (corban He called it; Mark 7:10-13). Jesus made it plain that this false teaching resulted in the Israelites breaking God’s command to honour their father and mother. If they gave money to the work of God instead of caring for their immediate family, they sinned against God because they failed to honour their parents. The same pattern seems to get repeated down the ages, especially when we hear today’s money preachers telling God’s people to give to God’s work (which really means give to their ministry) and God will take care of your family. OK, I must press on. Every blessing. 🙂
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 7:15 am
Jason, you may continue to address me as “Scalia.” I had to use my email address handle because I have another quasi-Wordpress account that I had to use for blogging at Wizbang.
As to the rest of your reply, we’ve been around that pole a few times. 🙂
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 7:17 am
aldilover, I’m very sorry to hear that you are ill. I hope you get better very soon.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 8:03 am
Thank you. 🙂
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm
SCALIA ALITO THOMAS NO SHOWS FOR POPE’S CONGRESS SPEECH
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — all conservative Catholics — took a pass on the opportunity to hear from the leader of their church.
It’s possible that all three had scheduling conflicts … More likely, however, the three justices were simply more discreet than Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who announced to media this week that he was boycotting the pope’s talk over concerns that the pontiff was acting “like a leftist politician.”
The conspicuous absences were a bit surprising, given that the current Supreme Court is sometimes characterized as the “Catholic court.” … the most conservative members of the court have not been shy about identifying with their church.
I don’t presume to know why the three Catholic Justices did not attend, but I have a hunch … Nevertheless, I find it incredible that the three would pass up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, regardless of their political persuasions.
Also absent were Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who are Jewish. Gisnurg who is also Jewish did attend the speech
LikeLike
September 23, 2016 at 3:19 pm
Shalom,
While the premise of your article is correct, your arrival at 23.3% is not. Your misunderstanding is here:
“The poor tithe was paid every three years.”
“In the third year” and “every three years” are two very different things. Take for example the prescription for Passover Torah tells us to celebrate it on the 14th day of the first month, there is more than one month in the cycle of months, there are twelve. Or for example, Yom Kippur takes place on the tenth day of the seventh month, there are more than seven months in the Biblical cycle of months, there are twelve.
In the Bible just like there is a cycle of months, there is also a cycle of years. There are seven years in the basic Biblical cycle, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Shemitah (release). Of course these are rolled up into the calculation of the jubilee(50th), but if we stick to the basic cycle of seven the actual number is closer to 21.43%. I admit this is minutia, but it is what it is.
Also, the idea that gentile Christians are somehow held to a different standard, while I understand this is commonly taught and accepted in many churches, contradicts the teachings of Jesus Himself in Matthew 5:17-19.
There is one thing you are spot on about, we all fall woefully short of what is required of us. Thank God for the grace and righteousness we have in our Messiah.
Shalom and blessings,
Jake
LikeLike
September 23, 2016 at 9:37 pm
Jake:
It all comes down to: “‘teaching for doctrines the precepts (dogma) of men.
‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’”… And that is all you teach, the precepts of men……….
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Sabbath, Tithing, Jubilee, Passover, Yom Kippur… yada yada yada…..the precepts of men.
LikeLike
August 19, 2018 at 7:27 am
[…] Tithing Cost Israelites More than 10% Under the Mosaic Covenant, Theo-sophical Ruminations, https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/tithing-cost-israelites-more-than-10-under-the-mosaic-…, April 12, […]
LikeLike
December 14, 2018 at 5:05 am
[…] for the people of God. But there wasn’t one ‘tithe’ but multiple tithes. So, as Andreas Kostenberger and David Croteau show, if you added all the different tithes that an Israelite would have paid under the Mosaic law it […]
LikeLike
May 31, 2021 at 5:02 pm
[…] is even redistribution of wealth via ~22% income tax, one day out of seven free from labor as opposed to the Egyptian one day out of ten, as well as one […]
LikeLike
December 11, 2022 at 4:47 am
You say the Law has been replaced by the New Covenant. What is the “New Covenant”? Jeremiah 31:31… the Law not only remains (until heaven and earth pass away) – but it is written on the heart. 🤔
LikeLike