|
If
tithing really
is based on natural principles of this world, and negates the
‘offence of the cross’, then why do some preachers teach it? One
of the reasons is that they believe that tithing was instituted
before the law, in that both Abraham and Jacob tithed. But when we
take a closer look at the relevant Scriptures, we can see vast
differences between the way tithing is taught nowadays, and Abraham’s
and Jacob’s isolated examples of giving a tenth. Here are just a
few of these differences:
Abraham
(Gen 14:17-20) –
Abraham
was blessed by Melchizedek before
he gave 10% of the spoils of war to him, and even before that time
he was a very wealthy man (Genesis 13:2,6-7, 14:14). Abraham
wasn’t blessed before he gave; he gave because he was already
blessed!
Abraham’s
covenant blessings (and
Isaac’s and Jacob’s, for that matter) are never linked to his
giving, either in the Old Testament or the New.
In
the Old Testament, no
form of giving was ever a condition for the fulfillment of the
promise of prosperity which God gave to Abraham before he tithed,
and which was restated many times throughout the Bible (Genesis
12:1-2, 17:8, etc).
In
the 70-plus
references in the New Testament to Abraham, his faith is often held
up as an example for us to follow, but never once are we told to
imitate his tithe.
This
‘tithe’
was not giving from his income; it was from the spoils of war, and
appears to have been a voluntary action. Note that Melchizedek is
first introduced as ‘the king of Salem’ (verse 18), and the most
likely interpretation for Abraham’s one-time act is that he was
following an old Arab custom that 10% of the spoils of war be given
to the local priest-king.
The main point here is that the
narrative doesn’t tell us why Abraham gave 10%; its purpose is
simply to record a historical incident.
Therefore,
Abraham’s
example in this narrative is not sufficient to establish this
passage as the ‘first mention’ of tithing in the Bible.
Jacob
(Gen 28:20-22) –
As
with Abraham,
Jacob was blessed well before
he vowed to tithe (and note that we have no record of whether or not he
actually fulfilled his vow). and his vow was conditional on God's
provision (not the other way around). Notice that Jacob told God he
would give 10% only after God had led him safely back to his homeland,
cf Genesis 28:15, 21, and that was some 20 years later. By this time
Jacob was already a very rich man.
We
are not told why Jacob decided to make this vow, and there is no Biblical commentary on this point– as with
Abraham’s 10%, it seems to have been a voluntary action.
- As
with Abraham, just because there is a historical record of someone
doing something, this by itself does not establish it as a pattern
for us to follow. Godly Jephthah also made a vow! (Judges 11:29-30)
– but nobody today would advocate imitating his vow!
We
should also consider the other Patriarch here, Isaac. He prospered
greatly (e.g. Gen 26:12-14), yet there is no record of him tithing
from his regular income either. Instead, the Bible directly
attributes his great wealth to God’s promise to his father Abraham
(Gen 26:1-5,
24).
Perhaps
the most important points
here are that:
God
himself is silent on the subject of tithing up until he commanded
Israel under the Law
to tithe (Lev 27:30-33); there is no record of God either commanding
or commending anyone for giving 10% of their income up until this
point.
In
the 400-odd years between Abraham and the introduction of the Law,
there are no direct links between Old Testament saints either
tithing or not tithing, and being under blessing or cursing as a
result. On the contrary, their great wealth is directly attributed
to God’s promise to Abraham.
These
passages are descriptive,
not prescriptive.
We cannot base a doctrine on historical incident alone. Otherwise,
you could also say that other pre-Law practices such as circumcision
and animal sacrifices are still relevant today simply because they,
too, were practiced before the Law was given.
This is a logical fallacy - for any pre-Christ customs to be valid
in the New Covenant, they would have to (1) be taught again in the
New Covenant, and (2) line up with New Covenant principles. As we
shall see, neither of these is the case.
|