31 Responses

• raNdOM ThOughTs » God, the Covenant Maker says so:
  September 6th, 2007 |

  

  [...] And, trust me, this really is an answer to the question posed in this comment. [...]

• joe says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  nathan: lol…don’t get me started on that one. I’ve been really going back and forth on my preconceived ideas about what Hell is…and I just don’t know where I stand at this point. I’m certainly not trying to turn this post into a discussion on Hell, and I hope it doesn’t go that route. This is a discussion on the tithe and the law, but good point.

  I may, in the future, do a post about Hell.

• nathan says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  What does Paul say about Hell?

• joe says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  This is true, until you contrast Paul’s lack of saying anything about the tithe, with his constant discussion of giving and generosity.

  One would think that Paul would mention the tithe somewhere in all that talk about giving, but he doesn’t.

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  @Joe: what does Paul (or anyone else in the Bible) say specifically about the Trinity?

  No one does, yet it is a Doctrine because it is implicitly stated.

• joe says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  I agree Todd, we should study those who helped shape Christianity.

  So, along those lines, what does Paul say about the tithe? Specifically? Show me scripture about what Paul says about the tithe.

  I think I would put his statements about Christianity above any current scholar, or even Augustine and Aquinas.

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  Interesting article about the debate.

  http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/jun6.html

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  Many of the greatest minds of Christendom believed in the tithe. Augustine of Hippo, for example: “Tithes are required as a matter of debt, and he who has been unwilling to give them has been guilty of robbery (Malachi 3:8). Whosoever, therefore, desires to secure a reward for himself (Matthew 6:19-21), let him render tithes, and out of the nine parts let him seek to give alms.”

  He drew a distinction (which I think is logical) between the tithe and a free-will offering (”alms”).

  Although there is nothing wrong with (carefully!!) reading current and recent theologians, it might behoove us all to study the ones who shaped Christianity.

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  @joe…

  I checked your references about ancient customs, and while interesting, they aren’t very scholarly. I would hesitate to use them. Also, most of the references to tithes as spoils of war refer to happenings AFTER the time of Abraham, so are again, not valid as evidence.

  My $.02. So far….

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  @Joe,

  Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I will investigate those resources.

  A word about wikipedia: although I enjoy the site, and use it often, caution is advised, because ANYONE can post there. The restrictions in place are helpful, but they can’t entirely catch those with the wrong information or who are interested in propaganda.

• joe says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  Hey Todd! Good to see you around.

  Well, I first ran across the idea that Melchizidek might be Shem on Wikipedia. This led me to google the topic. Check out the results! I, personally, don’t believe that Melchizidek was Shem, I was merely pointing out that there isn’t much agreement on who Melchizidek was.

  The concept of a spoils of war tax is available, again, on the Wikipedia, but also in the 1911 Encylopedia, On the Acquisition of Territory by Right of Conquest, Herodotus on Greek Religion, and several other places.

  The scholars that I am thinking of include, but are certainly not limited to, NT Wright, E.P. Sanders, Watchman Nee, Frank Macchia, Gordon Fee, Ed Stetzer, and, surprisingly, the Billy Graham Evangelical Association. There are certainly some small differences between each of these scholars, and also between myself and the scholars. But, I think the basic premise and overall conclusions are similar, and in some cases identical.

• Todd Helmkamp says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  Joe,

  I am joining this a bit late.

  Please point me in the direction where you found evidence that it was customary to donate 10% of spoils in the ancient world.

  Also, where you found evidence that Shem might have been Melchizedek.

  Also who the scholars are that you mention.

  Thank you.

• raNdOM ThOughTs » God says so:
  September 5th, 2007 |

  [...] following six posts are an answer to Nathan’s question from the post entitled The Bare Minimum.In Matthew 5, verses 17 and 18, Jesus explains that he has [...]

• joe says so:
  September 4th, 2007 |

  Nathan,

  I know of no scripture where Jesus specifically says that we ought to tithe. The only place that I know of that he mentions the tithe is Matthew 23:23 and the corresponding spot in the other synoptic gospels. The closest he comes to explicitly stating that we should tithe is simply to say that we should not neglect the former.

  I fully intend to explain what I mean by that quote, but it is an entirely new post. I will be posting it shortly. I have realized that I am operating under a presupposition about what I mean, and no one else is. Therefore, I need to explain my presupposition before I can explain anything else. However, that presupposition is the result of months of research and hundreds of pages of notes. I’m not good at condensing, so it’s taking me a little time to condense my current understanding into a neatly packaged blog post.

  I have a very specific understanding of the Law and Jesus relation to it, and the ensuing way that plays out in my life. I don’t believe it to be scripturally unsound, as it turns out to be the perspective of several scholars, but I need to better explain it before we can converse on level ground.

• nathan says so:
  September 4th, 2007 |

  could you please clarify what you mean by this:
  “I am not omitting the words of Jesus prior to the cross. He was under the Old Covenant, even though he ushered in the New Covenant. Since he was under the law, or the Old Covenant, he was bound to keep it, or to put it better, he was the culmination of the law.”

  Your argument of the tithe not being New Testament only holds water if you omit Jesus saying we ‘ought’ to tithe. (Which you have done on multiple occasions in this blog and comments.) So it seems like you are placing Jesus’ words in the same pot as the Old Testament, meaning, they are not applicable to us?
  Your answer I’ve quote above says No, but then explains Yes.

• joe says so:
  August 31st, 2007 |

  Sorry for the delay in clarifying. I have had an unexpected series of events that have kept me pretty tied up over the last several days.

  I am not omitting the words of Jesus prior to the cross. He was under the Old Covenant, even though he ushered in the New Covenant. Since he was under the law, or the Old Covenant, he was bound to keep it, or to put it better, he was the culmination of the law.

  Now, concerning what I believe to be the Torah:

  The Torah consists of both Tanakh (written) and Mishnah & Gemara (oral) portions.

  The oral portions are really commentary on the written portions and are better known as the Talmud. (Although, the 5th Century Babylonian Talmud is used more frequently than the 4th Century Jerusalem Talmud.)

  The Tanakh, or written Torah, is made up of the Chumashe Torah (five books of Moses), Nevi’im (prophets), and the Ketuvim (writings).

  The five books of Moses (which contain the 613 mitzvot, or rules, and the ten commandments) are as follows:
  Beresheet (Genesis)
  Shemot (Exodus)
  Vayikra (Leviticus)
  Bamidbar (Numbers)
  Devarim (Deuteronomy)

  So, I am specifically referring to the Chumashe Torah when I talk about the Law. That is where the specific rules and commandments, and how to act them out, are recorded.

  I think that the questions posed here are deserving of a much more in depth answer that is better suited to a new blog post. So, I am working on that blog post and will post it soon.

• nathan says so:
  August 31st, 2007 |

  In case it wasn’t clear, I’m still waiting for confirmation if Jeremiah is saying we need to omit (or ‘throw out’, if you prefer) all of the words of Jesus before the cross.

  This is a HUGE issue to me. The tithe or Torah issue pales in comparison with the doctrinal assertion that Jesus’ words are not applicable to our life.

  Perhaps you’re implying Jesus wasn’t God, but a man while on the Earth, and only became a god after he died on the cross? (For clarity, I DO NOT believe this!)

  But i would certainly appreciate some clarity to this HUGE doctrinal issue which seems to be implied. This changes everything!

• arzell says so:
  August 30th, 2007 |

  pardon typos, I’m mobile.

  Perhaps some people are getting caught up on “throwing out” the law. I thought Jesus alone cleared this up. The law, not the ” Torah”, has always been effect. But under sin man had no reasonable means by which to right themselves before god. His chosen people were “graced” with a verbal/written law that was very strict (notice my irony). HOWEVER their heart was not changed by their actions of righteousness. They were now slaves to a system. By jesus, now we are right before God and we work backward to the heart, and then to the action. Ever hear somebody talk about personal convictions. These are a great example of what im trying to convey.

  As the old testament law was so rigid because it had to bring everyone under one high priest, who was himself imperfect, jesus now acts in contrast as our each individual priest, providing us with a personal “law” that is in flux with our spiritual maturity. Like i said moving backward (but more accurately, forward) from the heart to the action.

  What im saying is actually starting to make me nervous because this is not what i was raised to believe. But i dont care because this is what i think. What good is the tithe to the giver if his heart is not in it anyway. Nothing!

• arzell says so:
  August 30th, 2007 |

  who cares what Abraham did, any more than what Adam did before the law. His tenth either was unrelated or god was identifying with his people through his involvment in their ancestry.

  To even argue about the law is rediculous. For those who feel free from it should mind their p’s and q’s and keep it to themselves. Or be very selective in whom they share it with. If one feels bound by something yet that is not sin, let them be, and allow god to help in his good time. Let us not make the body of Christ ill by force feeding alcohol before morning milk, or even breakfast.

• nathan says so:
  August 29th, 2007 |

  so, i am still confused by your definition of Torah. Do you actually mean Torah, or do you mean selected portions of the Bible?
  I think you mean you omit everything except “everything before the Law of Moses and after the cross”

  Is that what you are saying? You throw out Jesus’ words?
  Please confirm this. I’m still confused as to what you have defined Torah, and what you are and are not throwing out.

  And, how do you justify throwing out the law, when your favored ESV states in Romans 3:31:
  “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

  Isn’t the basis of your eisigesis here in direct contradiction to this verse?

• joe says so:
  August 29th, 2007 |

  Nathan,

  Frankly, yes, I’m throwing out freewill offerings because it is in the law.

  But, when I then start to look at the example and exhortation put forth in the New Testament, I find generosity. I challenge you to show me a standard of tithing in the New Testament…specifically tithing. Now, try to find a standard of giving, or generosity, again, in the New Testament.

  The standard of generosity is there, but the standard for tithing is not. So, I really have thrown out the whole law and started over, but interestingly, this life of faith pursuing Christ reflects the Law.

• nathan says so:
  August 29th, 2007 |

  FYI, you have a very faulty definition of Torah. You should read up on what Torah means and is. I learned this in DAY ONE of Old Testament Survey (actually, i knew it previously, but my point is, this is pretty basic.)

  If you have truly thrown out the law, consider Deut 12:6 (ESV):
  And there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.

  So you’re throwing out ‘freewill offerings’ because it was in the law?

  But you have to throw out freewill offerings, because it’s IN THE LAW! And you aren’t under the law, right?

  If you aren’t throwing out the entire law, your argument doesn’t hold water, and this entire conversation is moot, because you can’t pick and choose when it comes to God’s word. You cannot manipulate God’s word to fit into your eisegesis.

• joe says so:
  August 29th, 2007 |

  I really want everyone in this conversation to know how much I appreciate your input and feedback. I have only been able to consider this from my own limited perspective. You are helping me to consider things I hadn’t considered before, and thereby causing me to stretch and grow. Thank you! I really do appreciate it!

  Adam: Good point.

  That scripture actually says (NIV): “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

  I really think a better paraphrase would be that our faith doesn’t nullify the law, but, rather, upholds it.

  This is really what I’ve been trying to say, all along. I am not held to the law, as a matter of fact, according to Romans 10:4, Jesus abolished the law. I am freed from it. But, as I live out this new life I have in Christ, an amazing thing happens, I find myself fulfilling the law…not because it is the law, but rather because it is the new creation that God is making me into.

  I don’t not murder because it would cause me to break the law, rather, as a Christian, I find myself loving my enemy, and so fulfilling the law, through my faith. I don’t tithe, I live a life of generosity, again fulfilling the law, not because it is the law, but because it is who I am becoming through this “justification by faith” process.

• Adam says so:
  August 29th, 2007 |

  Jeremiah: “The tithe is null, as is the law.”

  The Bible: “We should not nullify the law, but through our faith we should uphold it.” Romans 3:31 (Adam’s paraphrase)

• joe says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  Nathan,

  I apologize, I did misunderstand your question. Um…the short answer is: This is going to be a long answer!

  There are three places outside of the Torah that mention a tenth (everything before the Law of Moses and after the cross): Melchizidek and Abram (Genesis 14:17-20), Jacob’s bargain with God (Genesis 28:20-22), and Hebrews 7.

  Jacob’s decision to give God a tenth is conditional! Check it out for yourselves. Furthermore, there is nothing that I can find where God commanded or required Jacob to make this agreement. It was initiated by Jacob.

  The discussion in Hebrews 7 is less about the tithe and more about the priestly position of Christ, with Melchizidek as a “type.”

  In order to accurately understand the tenth that Abram gave to Melchizidek, we must consider first who Melchizidek was. The fact is, we don’t know. There are opinions that see him as a priest who did not worship God, a priest who did worship God, Noah’s son, Shem, the pre-incarnate Christ…the list goes on. The one thing we do know is that he was the King of Salem and priest of God Most High.

  So, we must set that aside and continue on to why Abram might have paid him anything. In order to determine that, we must begin to consider the cultural norms and customs from the place and time in which Abram lived. Well, throughout history it has been a common practice to pay a “spoils of war” payment, which was very commonly 10% of the plunder. (I would be happy to provide references if anyone wants them, but I’m trying to keep this short.)

  Furthermore, Abram didn’t keep any of the spoils, so he wasn’t tithing out of his increase. There are no other references, or indications, that paying a tenth was Abram’s custom.

  In order to fully explore this line of thinking, we should continue on and see if Abram was ever influenced by the customs of his day. The short answer is, “Yes!” But, for space-sake, I won’t get into it here.

  I’ve spent months researching and studying the principle of the tithe, and I’ve really come to the conclusion that we are not called to tithe. The tithe is null, as is the law. But, as Christians, we should find ourselves living lives of Christ-like generosity, that goes above and beyond where the tithe ever did!

  Addendum: As I was finishing this up, I remembered I had stumbled across this link a while back: http://www.godwords.org/questions/should_christians_tithe.html.

• Logan says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  I don’t see what you are getting at Jeremiah. Matthew and Luke where only bringing up the fact that the pharisees where all focused on the details of tithing, but not on the reason why they where tithing. Wow, God helped me flip to the Bible verse. Anyway, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:23-24) “You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” You tithe because it’s just, merciful, and faithful, but they where not practicing those things and they where so picky about the money coming in. The pharisees where missing the big point of why they where tithing, which is why they where mentioned as straining gnats, but swallowing a camel. They would strain gnats out of the water they drink with cloth at that time. All in all I guess I’m missing the point you are trying to say here. For we are still asked to follow the commandments, but not just in the physical sense, but the spiritual sense. Like yeah, you shouldn’t kill anyone, but you are not to even call someone names, which kills them at the heart of their being.
  I believe we should give more then the tithe for all we own is only given to us to look after for God. It should not be all put into our churches, but a good amount should be put in. I don’t believe we’re to do it because we should but because it’s just, merciful, and faithful and living a life like that for God then you will truly live … if not you are but dust blowing in the wind. The only thing I can think of what you maybe meaning is that we are not to be attached to the laws to live with a real presence of life, but live like Christ and true life is breathed into us and lead up to doing what the laws say for the reasons why we are given the laws.
  If I’m not understanding, care free to point out my blindness.

• nathan says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  I understood your point fully.
  Apparently, you did not understand my question.

  If Abraham tithed 400 years before the Law, then the tithe was obviously not introduced in the law, but was a principle in place before the law.

  Under the law, it remained a principle, and also became a law (mandate).

  So, if you throw out the whole law, you are still left with the PRE-LAW principles, which include the tithe.

  So my question, as i asked previously, is, how do you explain this?

• joe says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  Hmm…I probably should have left out the statement about Abraham giving Melchizidek a tithe. It’s really rather inconsequential to the argument, and only serves to confuse the issue.

  My point here is not that the tithe has been selectively removed by the Law by what Christ has done, but that the Law itself, which includes the tithe, has been “set aside because it is weak and useless.” I didn’t intend to criticize the tithe independently of the rest of the Law, I intended to criticize the whole Law!

  That may sound rather odd, but look at it this way: Any thorough reading of Romans or Galatians will show us that we are set free from the Law. We are no longer under bondage to it. As a matter of fact, the things that are set forth in the Law are really a bare minimum. If we merely fulfill the letter of the Law then we are scraping through by the skin of our teeth.

  I think that, empowered by Christ, we are capable of sooooo much more! The entire Law has been set aside and we are living in freedom. That’s not freedom to do what we feel like doing, that’s freedom to truly serve God, without the bondage of the Law. If I obey the letter of the Law, I won’t murder, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t harbor hatred in my heart. You see, I’m in bondage to the Law. But, as I identify with Christ, and pursue the freedom He brings, I don’t ever even consider murder. I am a new creation, and murder is not a part of the new me. As a matter of fact, the closer I get to God, the more I pursue Christ, not only will I not murder, but the hatred will disappear to be replaced by love.

  So, in a nutshell, the closer I get to Christ, the more my life will reflect the Law…Not because I am under the Law, but because I am a new creation in Christ and those sinful things are no longer a part of who I am. And, slowly, I’m realizing it!

  Since I am looking at the entire Law in this way, the same thinking applies to the tithe…it is a part of the Law.

• Adam says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  This opinion you shared here on this blog is different than the one you shared on my blog only yesterday, “Why should we just tithe, we should also give generously.” THAT statement I agree with.

  Murder was a part of the Law as well. I guess since we’re not under the Law anymore then I can kill people who make me mad, i suppose.

  I believe you are taking Hebrews 7 out of context and misconstruing the words to support what you’re saying. Take off the blue glasses (ref. to Ed Gungor’s book, “Religiously Transmitted Diseases). Verse 18 is not implying that we should eliminate tithing any more than it is implying we should eliminate murder.

  Bottom line, if we take an Old Testament practice, consider it in light of the Cross, it will either cease, change, or stay the same. Hebrews 7 is not a reasonable reason to believe tithing stopped (any more than eliminating any of the other parts of the Law, such as murder). So it either stays the same, or is changed.

  I do believe that it has changed - our standard is generosity beyond the tithe. Period. But the tithe still belongs to God. Nothing in the New Testament changed that.

• nathan says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  How do you explain that (in Genesis 14:18-20)) Abraham gave a tenth, some 400 years before the law?

  Why would Abraham be practicing the law before there was the law, unless the tithe is more than a principle of the law?

  I suggest the tithe was God’s plan:
  1. Before the law
  2. During the law
  3. During grace
  (READ: Always)

• Russell Earl Kelly says so:
  August 28th, 2007 |

  You are exactly right. Thanks for standing up. Those who teach tithing do not realize that the blessings and cursess of tithing are the blessings and curses of the entire Mosaic Law. That means that one who tithes to be blessed by God actually places himself or herself under an obligation to keep all of the law and ends up under its curse. That is what we must conclude when comparing Galatians 3:10-13; 3:1-5; 1:6-7 with Deut 27:26 to 28:12 and Neh 10:29.

  Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, author of Should the Church Teach Tithing?