Are Christians required to pay tithes?

“The charity of a liberal is only limited by the depth of someone else’s purse.”

“Ought not that perfume had been sold and the money given to the poor”...was the high brow criticism of Judas directed at Jesus. I have for a long time called Judas the first liberal social justice advocate. Jesus’ response which was probably seen as cryptic by observers was also just as sharply pointed at Judas...”she is preparing me for my burial” Since we know Judas’ role in the betrayal of Jesus, the whole meaning and context of the exchange/counter exchange between Jesus and Judas during the “perfume” incident comes into bloom when considering the meaning of the crucifixion and the spiritual and psychological dynamics involved. Judas devotion to Christ was only worth the 30 pieces of silver he was paid to betray him!

Scratch the surface of any these modern “church based” social justice advocates and you’ll find another Judas trying to get out. You’ll know them when you see them...they are the ones telling churches to abandon old proscriptions against homosexuality and fornication outside of marriage and to water down doctrines regarding the deity of Christ or the virgin birth. Yet they want their churches to give away their money...usually to causes outside of their communities or to causes they may personally have a stake in...while ignoring the hurting in their own congregations. Yup...they are Judas’s all right...agents of Anti-Christ who as Christ said has”already gone out into the world!”!

Excellent input from you and others here... Good question, BTW. To which I would respond: First, is this an apples to oranges question? Adultery and murder are dealt with specifically and directly within the Old and New Testament’s, and are both condemned.

Is there a NT scripture given by The Holy Spirit to Paul, Peter or others (as the scripture says the scriptures are “God-breathed and useful for doctrine...”) that says that Christians are required to pay tithes. Are there any specific instances in the New Testament (Acts to Revelation) where people in the New Testament church (post resurrection of Christ) where people paid tithes or are commanded to?

No, I am not forgeting it.

Was tithing carried over to the NT, and is it listed in Acts to Revelation as being part of the NT program? If it was, where did Paul or Peter or any other person who was inspired by the Holy Spirit say explicitly that one must pay tithes?

2 Corinthians 3: 11, Paul the Apostle said that the Old Covenant was transitory, but the new Covenant has a glory that lasts. Paul also said that the Old Covenant was old, obsolete and ready to vanish away.

So tithing is not compelled.

I would say though, that if people could give 10% under the Old Covenant - a Covenant that Paul the Apostle said in 2 Cor. 3:11 was a transitory one, and one which was superseded by the New Covenant which has a glory that “lasts,” - and an Old Covenant which Paul also said was old, obsolete and ready to vanish away, then why can't NT people (those whom Paul would say are more than able to give 10%) give 10%?

And not give 10% not out of compulsion but out of a cheerful heart?

Paul the Apostle said that the Old Covenant was a transitory one, was like a school master until Christ came, and was a Covenant that was old, obsolete and ready to “vanish away.”

If there are no specific scriptures within the New Covenant that say that Christians are obligated to pay tithes, then should we rely on arguments based upon silence?

If there aren’t any specific scriptures from Acts to Revelation, and Christ truly fulfilled the Law in Matthew to John, so that we wouldn’t have to and because we weren’t able to, I would say that there isn’t much firm ground to base paying tithes on if we rely upon arguments based upon silence within the/a New Covenant framework...

Are there any scriptures in Matthew to John that say that ceremonial laws/tithing are carried over in the New Covenant program, and that say that Christians are obligated to pay tithes?

If so, where are the scriptures from Acts to Revelation (the New Covenant program based upon Christ’s work laid out in Matthew to John, which were culminated when He said “It is finished”) that say that Christians are obligated to pay tithes? Jesus Christ talked about sins and dos and don’t that are part of the morality that was carried over as they preceded the Law and are eternal truths that existed before the foundation of the world.

Was Paul right when he said in 2 Corinthians 3:11 that the Old Covenant was a transitory one, and did not have a glory that lasts, and when he said, too, that the Old Covenant was given to us as a school master until Christ came, and furthermore when he said that the Old Covenant was old, obsolete and ready to vanish away?

LOL. I heard that that cat made a comeback. God help those (and be merciful to those) who unwittingly who fall prey to him because they are ignorant or are “baby Christians”.

I agree - it all belongs to God - and those who have more wealth and/or income - should give more than 10% and those who can barely get by shouldn't be guilt tripped into doing the same. Paul the Apostle said to Timothy to charge those who have grater income/wealth to be “ready to distribute.” I believe that scripture is self revelatory.

You nailed it on the head. You put things quite succinctly concerning this matter. Well done!

Sure. If 10% is what is freely given and not out of compulsion that’s what is called for. Many do not restrict themselves to the old tithing system. For example time, ministering, etc. why limit such “giving” to merely 10 percent of money? Its not the amount that is important - it’s the giving from the heart that is what counts.

Was the Law that Jesus fulfilled truly fulfilled? Was “it is finished”?

Was the Law with its handwriting of ordinances “nailed to the cross” or not?

Was Paul the Apostle right when he said that the Law was given as a school master until Christ came?

Was Paul right when he said that the Old Covenant was transitory and did not have a glory that lasts?

Was Paul right when he said that the Old Covenant was old, obsolete and ready to vanish away?

Was all that Christ did (when he fulfilled the Law, which no man was able to do or could do) carried over into the New Covenant program found in Acts to Revelation?

Yes, Christ said that adultery and murder were forbidden and were sin, and many other things go along with this, but did Christ say that the tithe needed to be carried over into the New Covenant program?

Are there any scriptures in the New Covenant program (a Covenant which has a glory that lasts, and is not old, obsolete and ready to vanish away) that say specifically that Christians are obligated and/or commanded to pay tithes?

Bingo.

I agree with David Jeremiah, believe that he has it pretty much right (if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you).

BTW, watch him on television from time to time. I like his ministry...

Oops. I meant to type in “BTW, [I] watch him from time to time”

Straw Man.

You left out a third option: it isn’t part of the New Covenant program, as the New Covenant is silent on this, and Christians are to go by the New Covenant.

So why should one be obligated to follow the Old Covenant, when as Paul says, it is “old, obsolete and ready to vanish away” - a covenant of ordinances that were “nailed to the cross.”

Was Abraham before the law or after the law?

Did Abraham tithe to Melchizadek or not?

Was it to honor God or was it to obey a law?

"Paul also said that the Old Covenant was old, obsolete and ready to vanish away."

Yes, but what, exactly, was the old covenant Paul was referring to?

Was it not animal sacrifice and circumcise.

Look, if you don't want to tithe to your church, don't, but, trying to talk others out of tithing seems wrong, at least to me.

VERY well said! Kudos!

It all started with one little independent free floating thought that ran through my mind. I won’t say God told me this (for while I believe it to be so, you’ll need to judge this for yourself). “Jesus is your tithe.”

It piqued my interest. I began to form mental arguments against it. Jesus isn’t my tithe I thought. Why I’d been taught all my life, had believed without question that tithing was a command for the New Testament Church.

But the thought kept nagging at me. I began to think. What was the tithe? It was the smaller portion, given to God, that redeemed the greater portion. And I began to look at scriptures concerning the tithe. I paid attention to where tithing was mentioned and I paid attention to where it seemed logical for tithing to be mentioned but it wasn’t. I looked at Abram tithing to Melchisedec and Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchisedec. I looked at church history, and I looked at seemingly unrelated scripture.

Law vs. Grace

Hebrews chapter 7 speaks about several of these subjects.

Hebrews 7:1-22 (NIV) This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.
First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers—even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: `You are a priest forever.’” Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Here are some notes on this reference. I’m just going to list them right now and we’ll put them together in logical arguments a little later.

We see that Abraham tithed to Melchisedec. Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec. The Melchisedec priesthood is higher than the Levitical priesthood because Levi in Abraham’s loins paid tithes to Melchisedec.

Whenever there is a change in priesthood there is of necessity a change in the law. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah. Therefore the Levitical tithe holds no weight for us, because its priesthood was replaced by the priesthood of Jesus.

Okay, now the detailed arguments.

Tithes were only to be received by a priest. Okay, you may argue, but we are a chosen generation a royal priesthood a holy nation. Yes, but, we cannot use the law of the Levitical priesthood to determine our proper service to God, “For when there is a change of the priesthood there must also be a change of the law.” Jesus was out of Judah so we cannot assume any of the Levitical duties to be passed from their priesthood to ours.

In fact concerning the Levitical priesthood the writer of Hebrews states in v 18 “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless. 19(for the law made nothing perfect) and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God.”

Yes you say, but though we have no obligation under the Mosaic covenant, the tithes Abraham paid were before the Mosaic covenant and therefore outside the law, and therefore continued to the New Covenant. Not so fast. There are several covenants in the Old Testament; the Adamic, the Noahic, The Abrahamic and the Mosaic. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that only the Mosaic was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus.

If so, where is the completion of the Adamic covenant, where the first blood sacrifice was made.
Could we not argue that blood sacrifices were fulfilled under the Mosaic covenant but not under the Adamic?

Why would circumcision (fulfilled under the Mosaic Law but still arguably unfulfilled under the Abrahamic covenant) not be necessary? But this issue was specifically discussed in the first century church.

No, clearly each of these was a covenant between God and men, and each of these has one thing in common, sequential expansion by the next covenant between God and man. In fact, each was an expansion of revelation to the chosen people of God. Each of these has one more thing in common; total fulfillment in the New Covenant; a better covenant built on better promises.

There is absolutely no logical or scriptural basis to assume that because tithing occurred outside the Mosaic covenant in the Old Testament that it singularly survived into the New Testament.

Let’s take notice of something important in the descriptions of the various priesthoods described in Hebrews 7.

The Levitical priesthood received tithes and it is specifically mentioned that it does

Melchisedec received tithes and it is specifically mentioned that he did.

Jesus, our high priest has no mention of receiving tithes.

But you say, Jesus’ priesthood was after the order of Melchisedec. But not in the receiving of tithes. In the comparison of the two priesthoods, Jesus and Melchisedec, tithing is not mentioned as a similarity. In fact, the only reason tithing is mentioned when speaking of Melchisedec is to demonstrate to the Hebrew readers, that Melchisedec’s priesthood was on a higher level than the Levitical priesthood because Levi, in Abraham’s loins paid tithes to Melchisedec. This was not an example of tithing being brought into the priesthood of Jesus, but a proof that Jesus’ priesthood was higher than the Levitical priesthood because it was after the order of Melchisedec and the priesthood of Melchisedec was higher than that of the Levites (because Levi- still in the loins of Abram, paid tithes to Mechizadek).

Abram and Melchizedek- The Pattern We Should Follow?

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that new covenant tithing was to be based on Abram’s record of paying tithes to Melchisedec.

Genesis 14:17-24 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God most high, and he blessed Abram saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth,
And blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and give me the goods for yourself.” But Abram said to the King of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, “I made Abram rich.” I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me-to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share.

Now if we were to base tithing on this pattern, what would be our duty?

1. Tithe only once in our lives.
That’s right, this is the only record of Abram ever paying tithes. In fact this is the only record of the word “tithe”, “tithes”, “tithing” or “tithed” until Leviticus Chapter 27.
2. Tithe only after a great victory and then only after receiving a blessing.
This wasn’t a routine payment of ten percent of annual income. This was honor bestowed upon a priest after he had blessed Abram.
3. Tithe before you have made covenant with God.
There’s a reason Abram is called Abram here. It’s not until the next chapter that God makes covenant with him and changes his name to Abraham. In fact Abram isn’t even credited with righteousness until the next chapter. So, to accurately follow this pattern, we must only tithe before we have a covenant relationship with God.
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
4. Use somebody else’s money to pay the tithe.
Abram says he will not take anything that belongs to the King of Sodom. These were not his possessions he gave to Melchizedek. In fact, if we say that they are Abram’s possessions, we must add yet another item to the tithing pattern we are adopting here; we are allowed to break a vow to God to obtain our tithe.

If the tithe is carried forward into the New Testament because of the example of Abram paying tithes to Melchizedek, we need to reexamine our understanding of what that pattern is. As a pattern, there are definitely some inconsistencies with the way the tithe is taught today.

The Levitical Tithe- What Does the Scripture Really Say?

Let’s take a look at some scriptures concerning the tithe.

Numbers 14:22-29 (NIV) Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose for a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice. And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

I’ve got to admit. This scripture surprised me. I had always believed, had always been taught that tithing to the Levites was an annual event. That each year ten percent of the increase was delivered to the priests for their sustenance.

But that’s not the way it was. Only every third year was a tenth delivered to the priests. The other years the people of Israel were told to consume (at least a part of) the tithe on themselves and their family as a remembrance of the Lord.

I have heard many sermons preached on consuming the tithe on yourself, but never was it taught as a positive scripturally-sound practice.

Deuteronomy 26:12-15 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. Then say to the Lord your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, alien, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them. I have not eaten any of the sacred portion while I was in mourning, nor have I removed any of it while I was unclean, nor have I offered any of it to the dead. I have obeyed the Lord my God; I have done everything you have commanded me. Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our forefathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.

So, technically, if the Levitical law of the tithe passed to the new covenant, we need only bring the tithe into the storehouse every third year. And even then we must by law pass some of it to the alien fatherless and widow. Now that’s not a tithing sermon you hear very often is it.

Now let’s look at some New Testament verses concerning widows.

I Timothy 5:4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

I Timothy 5:16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

Why would the church not accept its responsibility to help all widows if the believers were bringing tithes in? Was the first century church misappropriating funds? Were they asking these believers to pay for the support of widows in their families twice; once in the tithe and then again in these verses? And why, if the believers were not tithing is there no instruction to do so. Could it be that since the tithe did not carry over into the new covenant, people needed to be reminded of their social obligations as Christians?

And why if the first century church was tithing did Paul go on to say a few verses later . . .

I Timothy 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

If the tithe was coming in, why would Paul have to remind these believers of the fact that a preacher deserves his pay. And if the tithe was key to financial blessing, and failure to pay tithes caused a believer to be guilty of robbing God as we often hear quoted from Malachi;

Malachi 3:8-10 Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
But you ask How do we rob you?
In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse-the whole nation of you-because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, says the Lord Almighty. And see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

Why would Paul refuse the Corinthians the blessing God wanted to confer on them by refusing to take money when he brought them the gospel. In fact, if he did not allow them to pass the tithe to him did he not, by law, cause them to be cursed.

I Corinthians 9:7-12 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the law say the same thing? For it is written in the law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us doesn’t he? Yes this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

Why, if Paul is establishing his right (which he does not exercise) to receive pay for bringing the gospel message does he not mention the tithe? Because it had passed away with the sacrifice of Jesus. Further, take notice of what principle he does refer to; seed time and harvest.

The Levites not only had a right to accept the tithe (every third year), they had a responsibility to do so. Imagine, under the law trying to present your tithe and the priest refusing to accept it. You were cursed. Under the law, wanting to tithe didn’t cut it. The tithe had to be paid. Paul, if he believed the tithe had carried over from the old covenant to the new covenant would not have had the option of refusing to accept payment from the Corinthians. He would have been placing a curse on them.

But the reference in Malachi is one of the best arguments that the tithe did not carry over into the new covenant. Let’s look at it again in light of some other references.

Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people, according to the law.

Two important notes:
1. The priests were commanded to take tithes; it was not an option such as Paul exercised in not receiving money in Corinth.
2. The authority came from the law.

Now lets reread our reference in Malachi.

Malachi 3:8-10 Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
But you ask How do we rob you?
In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse-the whole nation of you-because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, says the Lord Almighty. And see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

By not paying tithes, they were under a curse.

So, the tithe was part of the law and by not paying them there was a curse. We might even say that not paying tithes would place a person under the curse of the law.

If tithing is part of the new covenant, the curse for not tithing would of necessity be part of the new covenant as well. But the authority for the tithe came through the law as we read in Hebrews. Therefore the authority for the curse would be founded in that same law. Yet we see that:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law

So if we are redeemed from the curse of the law, obviously the curse associated with tithing cannot be present today. And it is in reference to the nation of Israel being under the curse of the law for not tithing that God tells them to bring the whole tithe into the storehouse so there is food in the temple.

But the lack of mention in the New Testament concerning tithing does not dismiss it from the New Covenant automatically. If tithing were fulfilled in the death of Jesus, we should be able to understand some sense of typology concerning the tithe.

Patterning Ourselves After What?

If the pattern found in the Levitical tithe is not the pattern, and the pattern found in the Abrahamic example is not our pattern, there must exist another pattern for the New Testament church.

So, let’s examine every mention of words that begin with “tith” in the New Testament. Don’t worry, it won’t take long.

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint dill and cum min. 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.

(Luke 11:42 offers an almost exact duplicate of this reference so for the sake of brevity I am listing the reference here parenthetically.) In his own remarks, Jesus teaches us here that the tithe was part of the law. But was he passing the tithe forward into the new covenant here? Not unless ceremonial washing practices were to be passed along also. Let’s read the next verse.

Matthew 23:24 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Was Jesus suggesting that dish washing was to be carried into the new covenant? No. In fact, he was pointing out in several examples how the teachers of the law and Pharisees were so careful about unimportant ceremonial acts while ignoring the heart change those acts were supposed to remind them of and instill. He demonstrates by showing how unimportant the first item is in comparison to the second item how they should have been concentrating on the second item instead.

Surely Jesus says they shouldn’t have neglected tithing here; they were still living under the Mosaic covenant. But that in no way suggests that this ceremonial act was to be carried forward.

Luke 18:11-14 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying God be merciful to me a sinner.

Here Jesus uses tithing as an example of something a person might wrongly assume indicated proper relationship with God; and this was while tithing was still in effect. Jesus makes a point of showing that outward religious activities do not necessarily reflect what is going on in the heart of men. This is certainly not a proof text for tithing in the new covenant.

There are four other references in the New Testament, and they have been quoted earlier in this work. Hebrews 7:5,6,8,9. Each of these verses refers back to either the Levitical priesthood collecting tithes, or the instance of Abram paying tithes to Melchisedec. We have already discussed these references in detail, but I wanted to mention them in this exhaustive study of the word tithe in the New Testament.

So, that’s it. Surprised? I was. Not one single mention in the Pauline epistles (I am among those who don’t believe Paul wrote Hebrews) of tithing. Not one single reference to tithing in any of the books which were written to correct error in the first century church.

Historical Evidence

Now let’s switch gears for a moment and look at church history. Where did the early New Testament church meet? In the temple. And if they met in the temple and they did pay tithes, to whom did the tithes go? The priests in the temple of course. So, if I’m going to pay tithes, there is historical precedence that I should be paying them to a Levite. But of course, I have a new high priest, who is contrasted to the Levites who, described in Hebrews 7:5 as “sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have a commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people”. But in describing the priesthood of Jesus, no mention of tithing appears. If the absence of the tithe were not intended to contrast with the collecting of tithes in the old covenant, the author would have done well to not mention the receipt of tithes by the Levitical priests.

But the absence of tithing is notable in other places as well. Let’s see what the early church fathers had to say concerning the Gentiles who were coming to God. Keep in mind that these were people who had no historical tradition of tithing. These were people who before coming to Jesus were pagans, worshipers of idols, followers of multiple gods. These were people who were being coerced into following the law of the Old Testament by Jewish believers.

Acts 15:19,20 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood

Acts 15:28, 29 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things you will do well.

Keep in mind this was in answer to people saying the new believers should be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. You would think that if the tithe were passed to the new covenant this would be a good time to mention it. As it stands, the sum total of the burden of Judaism the first century church was willing to lay upon the shoulders of the Gentile believers did not include tithing. And it is worth noting that this seemed good to the Holy Spirit as well.

Again we see tithing obvious in its absence when laying out the requirements for bishops and deacons in 1 Tim 3.

Above reproach
Husband of one wife
Temperate
Self-controlled
Respectable
Hospitable
Able to teach
Not given to drunkenness
Not violent but gentle
Not quarrelsome
Not a lover of money
Must manage his own family well
See that his children obey him
Not a recent convert
Good reputation with outsiders

But nowhere does it say, “must tithe”

And it’s not because Paul ignores the subject of money here, he says the person must not be a lover of money. It seems an easy thing to mention, “pays tithes as our father Abraham did to Melchisedec.”

And let’s face it, Paul wasn’t one to leave something unmentioned because it was so obvious. Wouldn’t it have been typical of Paul to say something like, ”and concerning tithes I don’t even need to mention this as a requirement. I don’t mention it now because I thought you would appoint someone who didn’t tithe and by so doing bring reproach to your congregation. No, I remember how eagerly you embraced the teaching of the tithe when we were last together and mention it here only to keep it from being a point of contention.”

No, the tithe is noteworthy for it’s absence in the new covenant. Why? Because it was part of the Law that was fulfilled in the death burial resurrection and ascension of Christ just as surely as was the Sabbath and Sacrifices.

Typology- How the Law Points To Christ

I don’t have time or space to get into great detail about typology. Basically typology is the study of Old Testament happenings and ceremonies, and how they point the way to showing Jesus as the Messiah.

What are some examples?

The Israelites put blood on the doorposts and lintels when the firstborn was killed in Egypt. This was a type of the blood of Jesus saving us from spiritual death.

Abraham offering up Isaac was a type of God offering up his firstborn son.

So, if the tithe is part of the law fulfilled in the death of Jesus, we should see be able to how the tithe, a type and shadow of things to come, was fulfilled and demonstrated in the new covenant sacrifice.

The same penalty for redeeming the firstborn from dedication to the Lord was applied to redeeming the tithe.

Leviticus 27:31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it.

Leviticus 27:26,27 No one however may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord; whether an ox or a sheep it is the Lord’s. If it is one of the unclean animals, he may buy it back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If he does not redeem it, it is to be sold at its set value.

And not only does the same penalty apply, they are in the same section of the law. We no longer view the firstborn of our livestock to belong to the Lord under the law do we? Why then would we consider the tithe to be in effect? No, the tithe was the first and smaller portion, offered to God to convey the blessing on the larger portion. Sounds a lot like the sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t it. It should, that’s where it was fulfilled.

And while looking at this law of the tithe, let’s contrast it to a well-known New Testament verse on giving. Now I know this is a bit unfair to tithing proponents because they don’t really have any New Testament references to support their view. But let’s look anyway.

II Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Now tell me how, if I must give every tenth animal that passes under the staff to God, as the tithe required, if I must offer every firstborn animal to God; if I must pay a premium to keep that which has been required by the law; how can I give only what I have decided in my heart not under compulsion.

Anyway you slice it, “Tithe or be under a curse” is compulsion.

Now I know there is an argument that this verse is speaking about giving above and beyond the tithe. I have heard the argument that this verse is referring to giving, but the tithe isn’t giving because it already belongs to God. I can find no New Testament support for this argument.

Let’s Not Stand on Ceremony

So then what am I saying? Am I saying don’t tithe? Yes I am. In fact, if we do tithe, if we do claim this part of the law to be required under the new covenant, do we not require all parts of the law to be obeyed? And if not, how then do we determine which portions of the law should be obeyed and which need not be?

Must I observe holy days and feasts found in the Old Covenant? Surely not. We understand these observances to be part of the ceremonial law, which pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus. We understand that they are mere foreshadowing of the work completed at Calvary. We no longer offer our firstborn livestock. Why then would we offer our first fruits in the tithe?

When we instruct people to tithe, we are burdening them with the entire law, for unless the whole law is kept, the whole law is broken.

Galatians 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

If Jesus, the first fruits of salvation, offered to redeem the larger portion, is our tithe; if we continue to tithe are we not insulting the sacrifice on the cross as not being complete just as surely as we would if we continued to offer blood sacrifices to God. For if the offering was complete and perfect why then we would we stand making less than perfect offerings still?

Hebrews 10:11-14 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties, again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect those who are being made holy.

If the tithe was not fulfilled in this sacrifice, we must obey the letter of the law concerning the tithe; and every other redemptive ceremony that was handed down to Moses in the law.

Seed Time and Harvest

But while I am telling you not to tithe, do not equate that with me telling you not to give. Or more accurately do not equate that with me telling you not to sow.

So now we’ve come full circle. We have returned to the promise found in Genesis 8.

Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest

The law of seedtime and harvest is the law promised to remain as long as the earth remains. That the tithe doesn’t carry that promise should in and of itself make it easier to grasp that it was intended to pass away.

So, will I ever tithe again? No. Even if I give more than 10% of my increase; I will never tithe again. Will I sow financial seed into the Kingdom of God? Most assuredly. but I will not take on the burden of a law system that was fulfilled by the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Let’s carry this a bit further. I personally found it necessary to repent from tithing. It became apparent to me that tithing was potentially an insult to the perfect sacrifice Jesus had made on the cross. Oh, I never intended to insult Christ in my tithe, and certainly God understands that. But after studying the subject, it became apparent to me, that while I don’t believe God took any offense to me tithing, from a strict theological view it was an affront to Christ. I merely expressed to God that as He was already aware, it was not my intention to besmirch or belittle the completeness of Jesus’ sacrifice and asked His forgiveness for any insult that may have been implied. God knew my heart then and God knows my heart now. I will continue to sow seed, but I will not associate myself with tithing any more.