Tithing – Part IV. The Tithe has Passed Away in the New Covenant, Probably
God gave the tithe to the Levites because they did not have an inheritance in the land of Israel. Given the change in priesthood in the move from Old Testament to New (Heb 7.12), and the change in the relationship of God’s people to the land (Heb 12.22, Gal 6.16), it seems pretty obvious to me that the tithe cannot be binding in the New Testament.
The best argument I know of in support of the continuing validity of the tithe comes from the fact that Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek (Gn 14.18-20, Heb 7.1-10, cf., vv. 11-28). Melchizedek preceded Moses (and the Levites), and represents the order by which Jesus is reckoned a priest (Heb 7.14-17).
Ultimately I’d have little problem accepting the argument, and I’d have zero problem submitting to a requirement to tithe. Nonetheless, this argument doesn’t quite get me there for a couple of reasons.
First, the author’s argument in Hebrews is only that Abraham’s one-time offering to Melchizedek demonstrates the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood relative to the Levitical priesthood. It doesn’t appear that Abraham continued to pay Melchizedek tithes, and so it doesn’t seem entirely plausible that Abraham’s seed (i.e., Christians, Gal 3.29) would have a continuing obligation to continue to pay tithes that Abraham did not apprently pay. In contrast, the Levitical tithe represents an on-going obligation to offer a tenth. So its fulfillment seems to me to be fatal to the argument that Christians must tithe as law.
Further, just because a Biblical practice preceded Moses does not mean that it survives into the New Covenant. After all, the Scriptures report animal sacrifices by Noah, Abraham, and others. Yet there is no question that Christians cannot practice animal sacrifice for religious reasons in the New-Testament era.
Still, even if Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek doesn’t constitute binding “law” for the Christian, I think it entirely possible to construe Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek as a sort of offering of an "honorific tenth." In that sense, it seems entirely commendable for Christians to imitate Abraham’s example, offering at least a tenth to Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the promise of the Melchizedekian priest.
Secondly, and more generally, the absolute silence of the post-resurrection narratives about the tithe seems to speak volumes. As we will see below, the New Testament Scriptures speak very often about the Christians' need to support pastors and the needy. I have a really hard time believing that if the tithe contined into the New Covenant, the writers who talked so much about the need to support pastors financially would talk all around the tithe while never mentioning the obvious need bring the tithe into the church.
The best argument I know of in support of the continuing validity of the tithe comes from the fact that Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek (Gn 14.18-20, Heb 7.1-10, cf., vv. 11-28). Melchizedek preceded Moses (and the Levites), and represents the order by which Jesus is reckoned a priest (Heb 7.14-17).
Ultimately I’d have little problem accepting the argument, and I’d have zero problem submitting to a requirement to tithe. Nonetheless, this argument doesn’t quite get me there for a couple of reasons.
First, the author’s argument in Hebrews is only that Abraham’s one-time offering to Melchizedek demonstrates the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood relative to the Levitical priesthood. It doesn’t appear that Abraham continued to pay Melchizedek tithes, and so it doesn’t seem entirely plausible that Abraham’s seed (i.e., Christians, Gal 3.29) would have a continuing obligation to continue to pay tithes that Abraham did not apprently pay. In contrast, the Levitical tithe represents an on-going obligation to offer a tenth. So its fulfillment seems to me to be fatal to the argument that Christians must tithe as law.
Further, just because a Biblical practice preceded Moses does not mean that it survives into the New Covenant. After all, the Scriptures report animal sacrifices by Noah, Abraham, and others. Yet there is no question that Christians cannot practice animal sacrifice for religious reasons in the New-Testament era.
Still, even if Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek doesn’t constitute binding “law” for the Christian, I think it entirely possible to construe Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek as a sort of offering of an "honorific tenth." In that sense, it seems entirely commendable for Christians to imitate Abraham’s example, offering at least a tenth to Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the promise of the Melchizedekian priest.
Secondly, and more generally, the absolute silence of the post-resurrection narratives about the tithe seems to speak volumes. As we will see below, the New Testament Scriptures speak very often about the Christians' need to support pastors and the needy. I have a really hard time believing that if the tithe contined into the New Covenant, the writers who talked so much about the need to support pastors financially would talk all around the tithe while never mentioning the obvious need bring the tithe into the church.
posted by Jim at 10:29 PM
2 Comments:
Further, just because a Biblical practice preceded Moses does not mean that it survives into the New Covenant. After all, the Scriptures report animal sacrifices by Noah, Abraham, and others. Yet there is no question that Christians cannot practice animal sacrifice for religious reasons in the New Testament era.
Nice job on the series, and a particularly good point.
Thanks, Gerald.
I've just started looking around your blogs. Some pretty good stuff as well. You touch on some topics that are close to my interests. (Great minds and all of that. :-))
Thanks for dropping by!
-- Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home