Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil
0908.htm
May Christians work on
Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant
Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should
Christians obey the Old Testament law? /doctrinalhtml/Does
the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal soul? Click here:
/doctrinalhtml/Here
and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have authority? Click here:
/doctrinalhtml/Is
There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is the
United States the Beast? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Are
We the Beast vs Collins.htm
Should you
give 10% of your income to your church?
Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God?
/doctrinalhtml/Is
Jesus God.htm /Doctrinalpdf/More
Evidence That Jesus Is God 08.pdf
Will there be a third resurrection? Click here:
/doctrinalhtml/Will
There Be a Third Resurrection.htm
IS TITHING BINDING ON CHRISTIANS TODAY?
A Brief Reply to Steven Collins' article in "The
Journal"
By Eric V. Snow
Steven Collins' most recent essay attacking involuntary
tithing
("Mandatory tithes are
Pharisaic tradition," Nov. 30, 1999) is worthy of a
detailed reply. Mr. Collins' piece should remind us that the
exegetical
principles used by
Pasadena half a decade ago aren't about to go away, even if
their application here
is restricted to abolishing tithing, not the Sabbath
and most of the Old
Testament law. In the limited space
available below,
there will be a defense
of the interpretative principles upon which
involuntary tithing is
based, not just tithing itself.
A remarkable aspect of Mr. Collins' piece is how often our
old friend,
the argument from
silence, is repeatedly invoked in order to abolish tithing.
Examples of this kind of reasoning include
asking where the New Testament
extends the tithing
principle to apply to non-agricultural income, where the
New Testament says
tithing is in force after the Levitical priesthood ended,
and where the New
Testament mentions an elder receives involuntary tithes.
It's argued that because
Abraham's tithe in Gen. 14 wasn't called involuntary,
therefore tithing isn't
voluntary today. Doesn't this sound
like the claim
that because Gen. 2:1-3
doesn't actually command mankind not to work on the
Sabbath, therefore, the
Sabbath command isn't binding today?
Needless to say,
if consistently applied,
this same argument will wipe out the Sabbath, the
Holy Days, and the
clean/unclean meat distinction as well.
To ruthlessly summarize, we face two exegetical choices
concerning how
the New Testament
abolishes an Old Testament law: 1. An Old Testament law of
God is in force until it
is specifically and clearly abolished.
2. An Old
Testament law of God is
abolished unless specifically repeated in the New
Testament. This choice in turn is influenced by whether
we believe in a
radical discontinuity
exists between Judaism and Christianity, between the Old
and New Testaments,
between Israel and the church. If we
believe the death
and resurrection of
Christ drastically changed God's ways of dealing with
humanity, we should opt for
radical discontinuity and thus choose option #2.
If someone uses the
argument from silence to say one of God's laws is no
longer binding on
Christians, he or she obviously believes option #2 above is
correct. Dispensationalism, as commonly taught by
evangelical Protestants,
comes down heavily on
this side. But suppose we believe God
has worked with
humanity in basically
the same way but with some of the specifics changed from
time to time. Then we should see Christianity being like
Judaism, but
fulfilling many of the
promises and prophecies made through the latter. If
so, we should opt for
continuity and thus choose option #1.
Now, as we open up our Bibles, which of these
interpretative assumptions
(hermeneutical
principles) is confirmed the most?
Space isn't available to
really prove either
version, but let's consider the heaviest single weight
favoring continuity as
against discontinuity: "Do not
think that I came to
abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
For truly I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest
letter or stroke shall
passe away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
Whoever then annuls one
of the least of these commandments, and so teaches
others, shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and
teaches them, he shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-
19, NASB throughout
unless otherwise stated). These are the
words of Jesus
Himself, whose death and
resurrection were supposed to usher in all these
massive changes in how
God deals with humanity. Here He denies
that any
change in the law was
going to occur because of His mission to save mankind.
Therefore, the words of
Jesus come down the side of general continuity and
against both radical
dispensationalism and discontinuity.
Let's consider in this context an argument Ian Boyne of
Jamaica has made
in favor of Sabbath
observance. We have the Old Testament
and its commands.
It isn't our job to hunt
down and find reconfirmations in the New Testament of
Old Testament laws. Rather instead, it's the anti-law people's
job to prove
the Old Testament law is
gone. The burden of proof is on their
side, not
ours. Let's extend this principle to tithing. It isn't the job of those
advocating mandatory
tithing to prove it is still in force by citing some spot
in Paul's Epistles. Instead, it's the job of mandatory tithing's
opponents to
find some clear,
explicit abolition of tithing that has the clarity of (say)
the annulment of the
laws of circumcision and animal sacrifice.
Since Jesus Himself specifically mentions that the tithing
command is in
force (Matt. 23:23), the
weight of Scripture is on the side of continuity for
this command. But now, are the words of God in the flesh
binding for
doctrine? A radical dispensationalist notes that Jesus
spoke them while the
old covenant was in
force. Consequently, the Gospels,
including the Sermon on
the Mount, mostly aren't
binding for Christian doctrine! So
then, are those
red letter Bibles
published so Christians can know all the more quickly what
can be ignored? This kind of argumentation absurdly exalts
the Letters,
especially Paul's, as
being (effectively) the only word of God that matters
for Christian
conduct.
Consider the reasoning about Paul's Letters by one of the
authors of the
excellent set of
articles dealing with tithing in the November/December 1999
Good News (p. E9): "Why Doesn't Paul mention tithing in
his letters?
Realizing that all
Scripture was inspired by God and profitable for doctrine
(2 Timothy 3:16-17) and
that the only Scripture available at the time were the
books we know as the Old
Testament, Paul did not consider it necessary to
repeat all of God's laws
in his letters. His letters contain
answers to
specific issues and were
not written as a new set of laws to replace God's
instruction found in the
earlier books of the Bible." Yet,
clearly Mr.
Collins' exegetical principles
implicitly assume that Paul does need to
mention again this or
that law for it still to be in force.
Even the words of
Christ aren't good
enough!
Now, let's consider some of the specific arguments made
against tithing.
It's said that tithing is only to be assessed
on agricultural income. First
of all, when Abraham
tithed in Gen. 14:20, "he gave him a tenth of all."
Clearly, the spoils of
battle couldn't have just been captured agricultural
produce! Furthermore, the word "all" in II
Chron. 31:5 could well have
included
non-agricultural produce: "And as
soon as the order spread, the sons
of Israel provided in
abundance the first fruits of grain, new wine, oil,
honey, and of all the
produce of the field; and they brought in abundantly the
tithe of all." Although Prov. 3:9 doesn't explicitly refer
to tithing, it
still states the broad
principle favoring it: "Honor the
Lord from your
wealth, and from the
first of all your produce."
This argument is also flawed because modern technology and
the division
of labor have worked to
make tithing binding on only about 1% of the American
population, at least as
a matter of occupational importance.
(Gardeners don't
hardly count!) God's law on tithing was written for an
ancient society in
which presumably 90% of
the people gained their living from the land as
farmers or
shepherds. Does anyone think that one
of God's laws--the principle
behind it--could be
almost completely abolished by modern civilization's
advancing
technology? If God inspired the Bible
in the late twentieth century
for a developed country,
it could well be that agricultural income might not
even be mentioned! In the Torah, God used examples of
income/increase that
made sense for the
agricultural society for which it was written.
To say the principle of tithing extends to modern wages
isn't "adding to
God's law" (cf.
Deut. 4:2) Did Jesus "add to"
the seventh commandment by
saying lusting after a
woman in your heart is a sin? (Matt.
5:27-28) Did He
"add to" the
sixth commandment by saying insulting your brother is a sin?
(Matt. 5:21-22). Or, if the words of Christ are deemed
worthless for
establishing doctrine,
consider Paul's use of Deut. 25:4 in I Cor. 9:9-14.
Here he takes the law,
"You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,"
and uses the principle
behind this law to argue for a paid ministry.
Clearly,
it's perfectly
legitimate, indeed required, that the spirit of the law for
Christians greatly
exceeds the literal letter in application.
Therefore, we
wealthy modern
Americans, with our affluence and luxuries far exceeding what
ancient Israelites could
have imagined, shouldn't think the principle of
tithing is no longer
binding on us just because God inspired Moses in the
Torah to use cultivated
plants and domesticated animals as examples of
increase in order to
make His law clear to ancient Israel.
It's an unsound ad hominem argument to say that because the
Pharisees
advocated mandatory
tithing, therefore, mandatory tithing is false teaching.
In fact, on doctrinal
matters, sometimes the Pharisees were right and
sometimes they were
wrong. They couldn't have been wrong
all the time,
otherwise Christ
couldn't have begun His scathing denunciation of them by
saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have
seated themselves in the chair of
Moses; therefore all
that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do
according to their
deeds; for they say things, and do not do them" (Matt.
23:2-3). On two teachings, belief in angels and the
resurrection, the
Pharisees were right and
their opponents, the Sadducees, were wrong:
"For the
Sadducees say that there
is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but
the Pharisees
acknowledge them all" (Acts 23:8).
Therefore, trying to refute
tithing through a type
of "guilt by association" is simply wrong. Even sinful
or self-interested
people can have objectively true arguments in favor of
their cause or beliefs.
It's reasoned that because the tithe was given to the Levites
to support
them in their work of
making the animal sacrifices, and both of these old
covenant institutions
have been abolished, therefore, tithing has been
abolished
correspondingly as well. But was
tithing's only purpose the support
of the Levites? What was the purpose of the second
tithe? "You shall eat in
the presence of the Lord
your God at the place where He choose to establish
His name" (Deut.
14:23). So long as the Feast of
Tabernacles is in force, so
is the second
tithe. What was the purpose of the
third tithe? "The alien,
the orphan and the widow
who are in your town, shall come and eat and be
satisfied" (Deut.
14:29). So long as poor people exist,
the third tithe is in
force. (Notice that, by deduction, the different
functions and different
groups that received the
tithe indicates more than one tithe existed).
Therefore, what should
we make of the argument that because the Levitical
priesthood has ended,
therefore, the first tithe went with it?
If the second
and third tithes still
have a spiritual function, wouldn't the first still
have it as well? The Levitical priesthood wasn't just
abolished, but replaced
by the Melchizedek
priesthood of Christ. As the author of
"Why Tithe in
Today's World?"
(Good News, November/December 1999, p. E5) reasons: "Thus
members of the Church
today continue to tithe even though the Levitical
priesthood has ended,
just as Abraham tithed to Melchizedek before the
priesthood of Levi was
established." The ministry today,
even with its
imperfections,
represents a part of Christ's government on earth today, and so
is entitled to
support. As Paul noted: "So also the Lord directed
['commanded,' NKJV]
those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the
gospel" (I Cor.
9:14). If it is "commanded"
to support the ministry, if it
asks for help (unlike
Paul in II Cor. 11:9), could tithing possibly be
voluntary?
Needless to say, more arguments favoring tithing could
easily be made,
but space limitations
intrude. For example, the arguments
made based on Jer.
7:22 that God did not
originally command Israel to make burnt offerings in
fact misunderstands a
Hebrew figure of speech that indicates relative emphasis
and is contradicted by
such texts as Ex. 10:25; 20:24; 23:18.
(On this score,
Pasadena was right: See Joseph W. Tkach, "New
Covenant: Agreement with God,"
Worldwide News, May 23,
1995, p. 2). Proving that Gal. 3:19-25
concerns the
moral law, not the
ritualistic law, has to be left to my essay, "Does the New
Covenant Do Away With
the Letter of the Old Testament Law?," pp. 24-26 in the
Servants' News edition.
I would encourage all skeptics of tithing to consider
reading the
brochure inserted in the
November/December 1999 Good News magazine, "What Does
the Bible Teach About
Tithing?," for its arguments are excellent. Another
good resource is Vance
Stinson's booklet "Tithing: Is it
For Christians?,"
which can be requested
for free from the Church of God, International, P.O.
Box 2525, Tyler, TX 75710.
Finally, those interested in trying to figure out
which Old Testament laws
are still in force and which ones aren't should
consider downloading my
essay, "How Do We Know Which Old Testament Laws Still
Apply to
Christians?" from the Ann Arbor UCG church's Web site:
io.com/~ucgaa. Clearly, there's enough above to show it's
fundamentally
unwise to believe the
skeptics of mandatory tithing have decisively proven
their case.
Click here to access essays
that defend Christianity's truth
Links to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here: /index.html