This chapter is
called “The Lie of Tithing” and we
consider that our advice here is far more contextually sound. That's all that's needed.
Tithing: A
Biblical Study
For many tithing is a serious question, in terms of
service to God and the key question of whether the laws of tithing are still in
effect in the NT church, and if so, to what extent. The general principle of
generosity is obviously still in effect, and no one disagrees that we know of,
but what about the particulars? We will try to answer these questions:
- Is “ten percent” still the norm today?
- To whom are we obliged to provide a tithe, if anyone?
Background: OT
Our study will begin with a look at the meaning of
the word “tithe” in the OT and the first verses in the OT which refer to it.
The meaning of the word “tithe” is of no dispute.
The word used is ma'aser, and means literally a tenth. 'Asar by
itself is the Hebrew number ten. Thus technically a person cannot “tithe” 5 or
15 percent of their income; it is like saying, “Cut me a quarter of that pie so
I can eat half of it”.
“Tithe” in English has come to mean whatever amount
we choose to give, but this is technically not faithful to the original meaning
of the word.
Now let's look at some of the first places we see
this word used:
“And blessed be the most high God, which hath
delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all” (Genesis 14:20).
“And this stone, which I have set for a pillar,
shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the
tenth unto thee” (Genesis 28:22).
“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed
of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the
LORD” (Leviticus 27:30).
“Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them,
When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from
them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for
the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26).
Within the context of the OT references to the
tithe are made to refer to that which was given as support to a certain person
(like Melchizedek) or an institution (the priesthood). But there is a point of
background interest here. Clearly Abraham and Jacob practiced a tithe before
the time of the law. There is good reason for this: Tithing was a widespread
custom in the Ancient Near East, and it was commonly practiced for the support
of kings and sanctuaries.
Sarna (Genesis commentary, 110) offers an example
of pagan “tithing” in the Ugaritic (Canaanite) literature; the tithe was paid
to a local king. Salstrand [The Tithe, 15] mentions secular examples of
the “ten percent rule” in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece, and Rome. We even
see an example of a “secular” tithe in the OT:
“And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of
your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take
your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your
asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye
shall be his servants” (1 Samuel 8:15-17).
A very important initial point may be derived from
this. The “ten percent” rule was a construct of the Ancient Near East even
before the law was introduced. Skeptics who speak of God's greed in demanding
10 percent might consider that God asked for no more than a sovereign of the
day would have for the support of his institutions. This was the “tax” of the
day, and one might note that it is far lower than the lowest tax rate even in
America today.
At the same time, Christians like Pink [Tithing,
6] are off the mark when they use the Genesis tithes to argue that “we cannot
account for what is there, unless we presuppose a previous revelation of God's
mind and a manifestation of His will upon the point”. The data suggests that
tithing was around as a secular practice before God made any recorded commands
to anyone.
In response Salstrand [22] quotes Landsell as
saying that the universality of the practice suggests a common source as far
back as God commanding Adam. That is of course possible, but there is no hard
data to suggest it over a more “natural” explanation, such as the influence of
a base ten counting system. Definitive arguments in either direction are
hazardous.
Has this changed in the New Testament?
Obviously this is our key question for today, but
it needs to be answered by first understanding how the world of the ancients
was vastly different than our own, as reported in Pilch and Malina's Handbook
of Biblical Social Values.
It should first be understood that the ancient
world held a concept of limited good, which is in contrast to our
own society's conception of inexhaustible resources. Of course our resources
technically are not inexhaustible — they just seem like they
are because we don't see the whole line of source and production! But for the
ancients all good -- whether tangible or intangible — was in limited supply,
and it was obvious that it was. This was coupled with the paradigm of honor and
shame, so that any person who held to too much of the limited supply was viewed
as greedy and dishonorable if they did not “share the wealth” with those less
fortunate.
Hence John the Baptist urges people to share their
surplus (Luke 3:11) and the peasant who does not forgive after being forgiven
by the king (Matthew 18:23-25) is an especially bad example.
Typically, we will find two verses paired for a
positive argument:
“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, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone” (Matthew 23:23).
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).
The reasoning: the Pharisees gave 10% in their “righteousness”,
so to exceed that righteousness, you also have to give 10%. This is fairly
fallacious even on the surface, for of course a person with millions of dollars
can give just 10% away and not do so “righteously” with ease; and in view of
the “limited good” concept of the ancients might even be regarded as being
greedy for limiting their giving to 10%. In fairness, not many use this
argument, and most just use 23:23 to say that Christ approved of tithing.
But really, the most that can be said is that he
approved of the Pharisees in particular -- who were usually
among, not the most well to do, but the “middle class” -- giving at the rate on
10%. This does not tell us that the same percent would have been approved or
demanded for the widow with her leptons. It also does not really affect the
terms of the new covenant, for the Pharisees supported the Temple apparatus
under the old covenant, which was rendered void in practice in 70 AD.
Beyond that we have passages that clearly teach
support, but do not mention “tithe” or any amount:
“Do ye not know that they which minister about holy
things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are
partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach
the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:13-14).
With this comment Paul clearly envisions a
situation much like that of the Levites and priests. As these “lived” of
ministering to the people, so likewise ministers of the Gospel.
Now on this point we would insert a bit of a
personal note. Certain Skeptics have made the objection that Jesus never asked
people for money, and so ministries today (like this one) should not either. “Jesus
sent his people out without any purse at all”, they say.
It's not recorded that Jesus asked for money, true,
and he did send out missions without money, but there's a certain social
difference here. The people sent out on mission lived in a social world in
which the ancient rules of hospitality demanded that those in
the towns and villages they visited should feed, clothe, and board them.
Secondarily, we have this:
“And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and
Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance” (Luke 8:3).
How was Jesus' ministry paid for? To put it simply,
rich people like these paid for it. What we see here is the typical
client-patron relationship in the ancient world. So those who want us to do it
the “Bible way” would mean having us do one of two things: Getting our food,
clothes, etc. directly from other people and living in their homes, or else
finding a few wealthy people and latching on to them.
So to make it succinct: yes, Jesus did not ask people for money, and he commanded the wealthiest people to
give Him their money. That's how it went in the ancient world when you were one
of the lower class looking for help.
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I
have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day
of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered
him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; cf. Deuteronomy
16:17).
It's not exactly clear here that Paul endorses a
prescription of regular giving, for in this case it is for a special project,
the collection for the Jerusalem poor — it is not a prescription for the sort
of weekly “normal” giving we practice. It is also an admonition to lay aside as
God has “prospered” the person. This is a rare word in the NT, euodoo,
and it carries the meaning of succeeding by reaching a goal (3 John 2, “Beloved,
I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health,
even as thy soul prospereth”.)
The clear indication is that those who get more are
enjoined to give more, and this fits precisely with the social concept of
limited good.
Pink [14-15] forges a chain as follows, though: 2
Corinthians 8:14 says, “But by an equality, that now at this time your
abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a
supply for your want: that there may be equality...” The point of equality
suggests that “God's people are to give the same proportion of their means and
the only proportion that God has specified anywhere in His Word is that of the
tenth, or 'tithe.'”
This is interesting reasoning, but exegetically questionable.
For one thing, the very next verse states, “As it is written, He that had
gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack”.
Paul is alluding here to the gathering of manna by the Israelites, a situation
wherein each gathered what they needed, no more or no less, to
survive — in line with the premise that the manna was a “limited good” day by
day. The manna was not doled out by percentages.
If we are to take this illustration at value, then
the principle is expounded that those who have less than they need do not need
to give anything at all, while those who have more than they need are to give
away what they do not need. Indeed this fits exactly with the premise of
limited good, and the practice of the early church: “And the multitude of them
that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that
ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common” (Acts 4:32; cf. Luke 12:48). Not a percentage, but whatever you had that
you did not need.
Of course this would lead to a discussion, “What do
I need, then?” but that's a hot potato for one's own conscience and more detail
than can be provided here. However, it is enough to point out that vague
threats like Pink's (Who says to one who has lost much money and says they
cannot afford tithing, that things will get worse if they don't, and who tells
those who make even $1.00 per day that they need to tithe) are way out of line.
Note as well that Paul echoes a provision in
Deuteronomy. One might argue that this contradicts the “ten percent rule” but
it is here we may bring in a point which has proven elsewhere in defense of
alleged Biblical inconsistencies. Ancient law codes were didactic rather than
absolute. They provided a “measure” rather than a strict law to be followed to
the letter. In that light the OT's “ten percent rule” is itself a measure
rather than an absolute. Deuteronomy's provisions for the poor to bring lesser
sacrifices rings in much closer to actual practice.
Salstrand [38] offers a rather questionable
argument for the “ten percent rule” being a minimum standard: “To say that the
proportion for Christian giving should be less than the tenth is to say that
Judaism [which strictly followed the 10% rule] has a higher standard than
Christianity and that a Christian may be more selfish than a Jew”.
We would say, first, that the standard isn't fixed
at all, but is in accord with how one is prospered by God, and that this is by
no means a “lower” standard but a proportionate one. (It also smacks slightly
of anti-Semitism, but we'll leave that alone.)
Finally, Witherington [Corinthians commentary, 315]
makes the salient point that Paul asks for help from all of
the church — rich and poor -- for a certain reason, which is not that
he expects the poor to give of necessity. Rather, he is “not interested in
fostering certain kinds of patronal hierarchical relationships” that allows
just a few people to “give large sums, gain all the honor, and so further
divide the haves from the have-nots in Corinth”.
To some extent the “egalitarian” nature of Paul's
request was motivated by a specific problem in Corinth. As such we
should be cautious about giving it a “universal” application.
Thus the matter of the “ten percent” rule. Now to
the second primary question: What was the tithe used for, and to whom
can it be given?
The first part is not in dispute. The tithe of
Israel was used to support the priestly institutions, the cultic apparatus, and
the persons involved in it. The tithe was Levitical “pay” for their ordained
occupation. The tithe was taken at the time of harvest, quite sensibly since
that is how it had to be in an era before cash or checks. There is also a
special tithe for support of the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).
In
the NT we see that charity was offered to the poor, but also that, as noted,
possessions were shared equally (what some have called “communism” —which
economically, it is; it is communism as it can only work, not
under an idealistic atheism!). So in practical terms, this means that giving is
to be done where it is needed. There is no rule that it “all has to
go to the church” and not to any other evangelistic or missionary organization
one chooses to support.
There is no “my back yard first” mentality either —
Paul's collection for the Jerusalem church was done with churches who had
plenty of poor folk who could have used extra help, even if Jerusalem was in
more dire straits than usual because of the imminent famine.
Pilch and Malina point out a certain irony. Our
celebrity “altruism” may involve hopping on a comfortable plane and flying 2000
miles to “hold hands across America” or dropping a dime in a bucket at a
convenience store, or using a credit card to support a telethon, to “help the
invisible and distant poor”, even as those closest to us still in need are
ignored or unobserved.
Of course this is not a condemnation of such
distance charity, since need is universal, and while you help the man in New
York, someone in New York may be giving to help the guy living next door to
you. Nevertheless it is clear that “impersonal” charity was something never
known by the apostolic church, which saw real needs and real people.
Freewill
offerings, not tithes, are what is prescribed in the NT.