Are Christians Supposed to Tithe?
Dear Friend,
I was reading some articles from one of my favorite websites I like to visit called Jerusalem Perspective.
There was one article in particular…
The title alone…“Are Christians Supposed to Tithe”…captured my attention. I have worked in or around the church for 7 years now, and I have seen how money is spent. I have also seen how money was not spent -- funny how that works. Because of the things I have seen, to be very vulnerable, it has caused me to doubt tithing to the church. This article affirmed my feelings, so I wanted to share it with you. I guess I should clarify that when I say ‘tithing to the church,’ I am picturing in my head giving money during each service every Sunday to meet the required budget listed somewhere on the program.
Are Christians Supposed to Tithe?
By, Jack Poirier
Jerusalem Perspective
Within popular piety in America today, it is widely believed that the Bible instructs Christians, either explicitly or implicitly, to give ten percent of their income to their local churches. Pastors teach this in the name of the biblical notion of “tithing”, a term applied to the giving of ten percent of one’s crops and flocks to the Levite. As we will see, however, the Bible nowhere even remotely suggests that Christians are supposed to give ten percent of their income to the church, or anything. Moreover, the plain facts about biblical tithing contradict the very possibility of any sort of Christian tithing, or at least of the possibility of basing such a practice upon a biblical model. Let us leave aside the question of whether Christians are bound to the Old Testament commandments for now, and look first at some of the specifics concerning tithing during the days of the Temple.
In the Bible there are three different tithes (although the third is really a part of the second). The first (Leviticus 27) is the best known, but even it, when properly understood, does not correspond at all with the notion that a tithe represents the giving of ten percent of everyone’s income to the Temple. There are two central facts about this first tithe that contradict the common conception. First, it did not apply to everyone’s income. Rather, it consists of ten percent of the crops grown and the livestock raised by Israelite (later Jewish) farmers within the land of Canaan. Israelites living in the land of Canaan who made their living by any other means did not have to pay this tithe, and Israelites farming outside of the land of Canaan did not have to pay this tithe. This is because the first tithe was not a required payment for livelihood per se, but rather it represented payment for tenancy on God’s land. In other words, the first tithe was not a sort of thank offering for one’s livelihood, as it is commonly construed today: rather, it applied only to those farming within the land of Canaan.
The second misconception about the first tithe is just as significant: although farmers gave ten percent of their produce to the Levites, only one percent of their produce actually wound up going to the priests who minister in the Temple (Num 18:20-32), for whom it represented their livelihood, and none of it went to the administration of the Temple generally. This is because the first tithe was used primarily as a sort of social security system: the Levites were prohibited, by the Law, to own land, so God provided for their welfare by giving them ninety percent of the tithe paid by those who were land tenants. The farmer gave all his tithe to the Levites, and it was only the latter who separated out the portion going to the priests officiating in the Temple. (As far as the farmer was concerned, all the tithe went to pay for the welfare of the Levites.) In other words, if the tithe corresponds to anything in today’s society, it is not the giving of an set amount to a church, but the payment of a social security tax to the federal government. The Old Testament “church” (viz. the Temple) actually wound up with none of the farmer’s income, except insofar as the priests officiating were given a tithe of the Levites’ portion to eat as a heave offering. This is a far cry from the idea that Christians (whether they’re farmers or anything else) are supposed to give ten percent of all their income to the church.
There was also a second tithe, discussed in Deuteronomy 14. The procedures for this tithe vary according to a seven-year cycle. In the first, second, fourth, fifth, and (probably) sixth years of the cycle, a tithe of one’s produce was to be taken to Jerusalem, to be offered up and consumed (by the tither) within the holy city. If a farming family lived too far to carry its produce all the way to Jerusalem, it could redeem its tithe and bring the money (adding twenty percent extra) to Jerusalem, where they were to buy, according to the language of the King James Version, “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink” (Deut 14:26). In other words, this tithe was not really given away, but rather consumed by the tither as an offering to the Lord. Obviously, this tithe is also a far cry from the dominant notion of tithing in the church today. It corresponds more to a sort of potluck dinner and drinking party, for farmers only. (Needless to say, few pastors are in the habit of quoting this verse: When is the last time you heard a pastor tell his flock that they should spend their tithe on a steak dinner or a bottle of liquor?)
The third tithe was simply the tithe from the third year of the seven-year cycle (Deut 14:1-29; 26:1-19). (There was no tithe in the seventh year since the land was not permitted to be farmed that year.) In this year the tithe was to be given to the Levites, the widows, and the orphans. (In Deut 26:12, the third year is called “the year of tithing”, which seems to imply that the arrangement we called the “second tithe” wasn’t really a tithe.) This also does not correspond with modern ideas about tithing. Rather, it is strictly for poverty relief. Again, none of this tithe went toward the Temple.
If none of any of the three tithes went towards the administration of the Temple, then how was that institution supported? This was done through a Temple tax, leveled on all male Israelites over twenty years of age, to help subsidize Temple operations (Exodus 30). It should be noted, however, that this Temple tax was a fixed amount, and was not based on a percentage of income. Everyone, rich and poor alike, paid the same amount.
We have not even asked about the relationship of the church to the cultic law, but we can already see a terrific problem with the idea that Christians are supposed to give ten percent of their income to the church: none of the biblical tithes even remotely corresponds to this scheme. The closest correspondence between the biblical system and any modern church practices of which I am aware is found in the relationship between the Temple tax and the present-day arrangement, used by many Eastern Orthodox churches, of charging a set annual amount for membership dues (usually around $300-$500 per family). The idea of everyone paying ten percent of their income to the local church is utterly foreign to the Bible.
We have seen that the Old Testament laws cannot be made to fit with modern ideas of tithing, but what about the question of whether these laws, in principle, can be extended to the church? Here, I will repeat what I said above: the Bible nowhere even remotely suggests that Christians are to tithe. All of the references to tithing in the Gospels refer to the Israelite/Jewish system, and when Jesus, in response to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, expounds on the proper way to tithe, that cannot be construed as a warrant for Christian tithing any more than his expounding on the proper way to offer an animal sacrifice can be construed as a warrant for Christian animal sacrifices. Jesus’ remarks about tithing (Matt 23:23) are made within a series of injunctions that cannot possibly be extended to the church in its entirety. (Two verses later Jesus affirms for the Pharisees the necessity of observing the ritual purity laws with respect to the washing of cups and plates.) This immediately raises the question of whether one can arbitrarily decide that a particular injunction is binding upon Christians. We cannot practice selective reading simply for convenience’s sake.
This goes for how we read Malachi 3: How can anyone categorically state that Malachi’s reference to tithing is relevant for Christians, when the same book speaks, in the same terms, about the proper way to sacrifice an animal upon the altar? One cannot have it both ways. Unless one actually believes that Christians should offer animals as sacrifices, one must accept the burden of proof for claiming that the references to tithing in Matthew 23 and Malachi 3 are binding on Christians. (Since pastors often quote Malachi 3 to support their beliefs on tithing, it bears mentioning that that passage is not directed at the farmers who give the tithe, but at the crooked priests, who were collecting the tithe from the farmers but taking a cut off the top before depositing it in the storehouse.)
I should also mention that Paul’s remarks about giving have nothing to do with tithing. When he told believers to put something aside at the beginning of the week, he was talking about a discretionary amount for a one-time relief offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem. There is no allusion anywhere in his writings to the giving of a set amount, nor is there any allusion to any sort of regular giving to the local congregation. (In late antiquity, synagogues and churches were built by well-to-do benefactors, who donated different parts of the building in their entirety [and were usually credited for it in an inscription].)[1] All of this, of course, calls into question the common “observation” that Jesus tithed. Unless we have good reason to think that Jesus was a farmer or a Levite (or an overscrupulous Pharisee who tithed what he ate just in case the farmer who grew it failed to tithe it), then there is correspondingly little reason to suppose that Jesus ever tithed.
How do we account for how widespread these errors in understanding are today? The obvious answer is wrapped up in the fact that pastors and other church officials have a vested interest in the income that tithing provides. God cannot be pleased with the misinformation campaigns that are being waged from pulpits, and God cannot be pleased with the financial strain that pastors are putting on church members by making them believe that tithing is a scriptural obligation. If Jesus censured the Pharisees for loading burdens upon the people that they could not bear, would he not censure today’s pastors for doing the same thing?
[1] By the way, we do have an idea when the shallow reading of these passages on tithing was first adopted by the church, that is, when the idea of Christian tithing began: it was in the sixth century. (There’s a chapter detailing the sixth-century origins of Christian tithing in R. Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss des Alten Testamentes auf Recht und Liturgie des frühen Mittelalters (6. - 8. Jahrhundert) [2nd ed.; Bonner historische Forschungen 23; Bonn, Ludwig Röhrscheid, 1970].) The practice was advocated by the Council of Tours in 567 and the second Council of Macon in 585, and it became obligatory (by law) in the Carolingian empire (in 765).
I wanted to know what you think???
heart.soul.mind.
kyle diroberts
I was reading some articles from one of my favorite websites I like to visit called Jerusalem Perspective.
There was one article in particular…
The title alone…“Are Christians Supposed to Tithe”…captured my attention. I have worked in or around the church for 7 years now, and I have seen how money is spent. I have also seen how money was not spent -- funny how that works. Because of the things I have seen, to be very vulnerable, it has caused me to doubt tithing to the church. This article affirmed my feelings, so I wanted to share it with you. I guess I should clarify that when I say ‘tithing to the church,’ I am picturing in my head giving money during each service every Sunday to meet the required budget listed somewhere on the program.
Are Christians Supposed to Tithe?
By, Jack Poirier
Jerusalem Perspective
Within popular piety in America today, it is widely believed that the Bible instructs Christians, either explicitly or implicitly, to give ten percent of their income to their local churches. Pastors teach this in the name of the biblical notion of “tithing”, a term applied to the giving of ten percent of one’s crops and flocks to the Levite. As we will see, however, the Bible nowhere even remotely suggests that Christians are supposed to give ten percent of their income to the church, or anything. Moreover, the plain facts about biblical tithing contradict the very possibility of any sort of Christian tithing, or at least of the possibility of basing such a practice upon a biblical model. Let us leave aside the question of whether Christians are bound to the Old Testament commandments for now, and look first at some of the specifics concerning tithing during the days of the Temple.
In the Bible there are three different tithes (although the third is really a part of the second). The first (Leviticus 27) is the best known, but even it, when properly understood, does not correspond at all with the notion that a tithe represents the giving of ten percent of everyone’s income to the Temple. There are two central facts about this first tithe that contradict the common conception. First, it did not apply to everyone’s income. Rather, it consists of ten percent of the crops grown and the livestock raised by Israelite (later Jewish) farmers within the land of Canaan. Israelites living in the land of Canaan who made their living by any other means did not have to pay this tithe, and Israelites farming outside of the land of Canaan did not have to pay this tithe. This is because the first tithe was not a required payment for livelihood per se, but rather it represented payment for tenancy on God’s land. In other words, the first tithe was not a sort of thank offering for one’s livelihood, as it is commonly construed today: rather, it applied only to those farming within the land of Canaan.
The second misconception about the first tithe is just as significant: although farmers gave ten percent of their produce to the Levites, only one percent of their produce actually wound up going to the priests who minister in the Temple (Num 18:20-32), for whom it represented their livelihood, and none of it went to the administration of the Temple generally. This is because the first tithe was used primarily as a sort of social security system: the Levites were prohibited, by the Law, to own land, so God provided for their welfare by giving them ninety percent of the tithe paid by those who were land tenants. The farmer gave all his tithe to the Levites, and it was only the latter who separated out the portion going to the priests officiating in the Temple. (As far as the farmer was concerned, all the tithe went to pay for the welfare of the Levites.) In other words, if the tithe corresponds to anything in today’s society, it is not the giving of an set amount to a church, but the payment of a social security tax to the federal government. The Old Testament “church” (viz. the Temple) actually wound up with none of the farmer’s income, except insofar as the priests officiating were given a tithe of the Levites’ portion to eat as a heave offering. This is a far cry from the idea that Christians (whether they’re farmers or anything else) are supposed to give ten percent of all their income to the church.
There was also a second tithe, discussed in Deuteronomy 14. The procedures for this tithe vary according to a seven-year cycle. In the first, second, fourth, fifth, and (probably) sixth years of the cycle, a tithe of one’s produce was to be taken to Jerusalem, to be offered up and consumed (by the tither) within the holy city. If a farming family lived too far to carry its produce all the way to Jerusalem, it could redeem its tithe and bring the money (adding twenty percent extra) to Jerusalem, where they were to buy, according to the language of the King James Version, “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink” (Deut 14:26). In other words, this tithe was not really given away, but rather consumed by the tither as an offering to the Lord. Obviously, this tithe is also a far cry from the dominant notion of tithing in the church today. It corresponds more to a sort of potluck dinner and drinking party, for farmers only. (Needless to say, few pastors are in the habit of quoting this verse: When is the last time you heard a pastor tell his flock that they should spend their tithe on a steak dinner or a bottle of liquor?)
The third tithe was simply the tithe from the third year of the seven-year cycle (Deut 14:1-29; 26:1-19). (There was no tithe in the seventh year since the land was not permitted to be farmed that year.) In this year the tithe was to be given to the Levites, the widows, and the orphans. (In Deut 26:12, the third year is called “the year of tithing”, which seems to imply that the arrangement we called the “second tithe” wasn’t really a tithe.) This also does not correspond with modern ideas about tithing. Rather, it is strictly for poverty relief. Again, none of this tithe went toward the Temple.
If none of any of the three tithes went towards the administration of the Temple, then how was that institution supported? This was done through a Temple tax, leveled on all male Israelites over twenty years of age, to help subsidize Temple operations (Exodus 30). It should be noted, however, that this Temple tax was a fixed amount, and was not based on a percentage of income. Everyone, rich and poor alike, paid the same amount.
We have not even asked about the relationship of the church to the cultic law, but we can already see a terrific problem with the idea that Christians are supposed to give ten percent of their income to the church: none of the biblical tithes even remotely corresponds to this scheme. The closest correspondence between the biblical system and any modern church practices of which I am aware is found in the relationship between the Temple tax and the present-day arrangement, used by many Eastern Orthodox churches, of charging a set annual amount for membership dues (usually around $300-$500 per family). The idea of everyone paying ten percent of their income to the local church is utterly foreign to the Bible.
We have seen that the Old Testament laws cannot be made to fit with modern ideas of tithing, but what about the question of whether these laws, in principle, can be extended to the church? Here, I will repeat what I said above: the Bible nowhere even remotely suggests that Christians are to tithe. All of the references to tithing in the Gospels refer to the Israelite/Jewish system, and when Jesus, in response to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, expounds on the proper way to tithe, that cannot be construed as a warrant for Christian tithing any more than his expounding on the proper way to offer an animal sacrifice can be construed as a warrant for Christian animal sacrifices. Jesus’ remarks about tithing (Matt 23:23) are made within a series of injunctions that cannot possibly be extended to the church in its entirety. (Two verses later Jesus affirms for the Pharisees the necessity of observing the ritual purity laws with respect to the washing of cups and plates.) This immediately raises the question of whether one can arbitrarily decide that a particular injunction is binding upon Christians. We cannot practice selective reading simply for convenience’s sake.
This goes for how we read Malachi 3: How can anyone categorically state that Malachi’s reference to tithing is relevant for Christians, when the same book speaks, in the same terms, about the proper way to sacrifice an animal upon the altar? One cannot have it both ways. Unless one actually believes that Christians should offer animals as sacrifices, one must accept the burden of proof for claiming that the references to tithing in Matthew 23 and Malachi 3 are binding on Christians. (Since pastors often quote Malachi 3 to support their beliefs on tithing, it bears mentioning that that passage is not directed at the farmers who give the tithe, but at the crooked priests, who were collecting the tithe from the farmers but taking a cut off the top before depositing it in the storehouse.)
I should also mention that Paul’s remarks about giving have nothing to do with tithing. When he told believers to put something aside at the beginning of the week, he was talking about a discretionary amount for a one-time relief offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem. There is no allusion anywhere in his writings to the giving of a set amount, nor is there any allusion to any sort of regular giving to the local congregation. (In late antiquity, synagogues and churches were built by well-to-do benefactors, who donated different parts of the building in their entirety [and were usually credited for it in an inscription].)[1] All of this, of course, calls into question the common “observation” that Jesus tithed. Unless we have good reason to think that Jesus was a farmer or a Levite (or an overscrupulous Pharisee who tithed what he ate just in case the farmer who grew it failed to tithe it), then there is correspondingly little reason to suppose that Jesus ever tithed.
How do we account for how widespread these errors in understanding are today? The obvious answer is wrapped up in the fact that pastors and other church officials have a vested interest in the income that tithing provides. God cannot be pleased with the misinformation campaigns that are being waged from pulpits, and God cannot be pleased with the financial strain that pastors are putting on church members by making them believe that tithing is a scriptural obligation. If Jesus censured the Pharisees for loading burdens upon the people that they could not bear, would he not censure today’s pastors for doing the same thing?
[1] By the way, we do have an idea when the shallow reading of these passages on tithing was first adopted by the church, that is, when the idea of Christian tithing began: it was in the sixth century. (There’s a chapter detailing the sixth-century origins of Christian tithing in R. Kottje, Studien zum Einfluss des Alten Testamentes auf Recht und Liturgie des frühen Mittelalters (6. - 8. Jahrhundert) [2nd ed.; Bonner historische Forschungen 23; Bonn, Ludwig Röhrscheid, 1970].) The practice was advocated by the Council of Tours in 567 and the second Council of Macon in 585, and it became obligatory (by law) in the Carolingian empire (in 765).
I wanted to know what you think???
heart.soul.mind.
kyle diroberts
posted by Kyle DiRoberts at 3:46 PM
9 Comments:
ok, so i finally had time to sit and read this fricken' long blog today, and guess i should reply on what i think* tithing looks like. i hold the belief that a person should consider every dollar they have as God's (i know this starts out cheesy).
and everytime a person spends money they need to determine whether this was a wise use of the responsibility given them. 'to whom much is given, much is required'.
don't get me wrong. i waste tons of money on coffee and iTunes, so maybe my definition of tithing is a false attempt at sounding spiritual; because what a person does actually defines their beliefs. (the medium is the message).
I am a current seminary student headed towards full time ministry and would teach the same thing from my pulpit.
While I do not "tithe" for the same reasons outlined in the article... I do however give "offerings" which is much less religious (and potentially coerced).
While I can escape the doctrine of tithing in the Older Testament, I cannot escape the teachings of interdependency located in the Newer Testament.
So I give... and I do so cheerfully ("Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver". 2 Cor. 9:7). If God loves a joyful giver... and I want to be loved by God, it makes sense that I give.
And so I do. I give to the church, to church plants, to charities, to family, to friends, and to those in need.
I also give to flee the temptation to believe that I am self sufficient. There is a great amount of personal gain when someone gives, and its not always just a kind thing done for someone else.
Quite literally I benefit when I chose to part with the idea that I "make money". I don't make money. How absurd! The government makes money. They manufacture and produce it. I merely find a way to carve out of those existing funds what is necessary for my family... and that is a task that takes continual re-evaluation as I understand just how "well off" I am ( for fun see: http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php )
One more quick note about 2 Cor. 9:7 is that "joyful" is translated from the greek word "hilaron" or hilarious. If God loves a hilarious giver, then I want to be the life of the giving party. I want to be the one who at moments can leave rationality behind and be absurd as I let my financial guard down and LIVE.
No christians should not tithe. plain and simple. I don't believe in tithing. i believe in 100% stewardship. and if that concept calls you to give 10% to a church then that's great, and if not, then that's fine as well.
Kyle, we can nit pick percentages and analyze and compare Hebraic vs. Greek text but there is the stark reality that dude points out. It's ALL God's. If we listen to the promptings of the Spirit, we give what we are told to give. For some it's that 10% weekly so church's continue to function. In other cases it's a lot more, or a lot less, or none at all.
Unfortunately, church's today don't like to teach the hard stuff - like it's ALL God's, so they teach the tithe - otherwise no one would come to church.
God is calling a remnant, those that would walk in his ways wholly, and not just on Sunday's. I personally believe that He is fed up with Christianity lite.
The Old Testament does more than point the way toward Jesus. It shows us the nature of God. That nature DEMANDS obedience in ALL things.
As for the 10%, I heard it said best by someone I respect - "since it's ALL God's, be happy that He only wants 10% of it."
I agree... I don't tithe and never will... it's all about grace... The church I attend calls it a "grace offering", to give not under compulsion, guilt or anything alike, but out of grace and love. Most of the money offered is given to missionaries.
loved the article.
Tithing often is a good way to get people to start giving sacrificially, living by faith, but it often backfires and hinders spontaneous ministry. (i.e. I can't pay to tow a stranded stranger because i have to make tithe this week.)
We (My Family and I) look at it this way. When we are in church and feel compelled to give our "Tithe or Offering" (however you want to say it) we do give it to the church. BUT IF I SEE A NEED BEFORE I GET TO CHURCH, LIKE MY WIFE FOUND OUT OUR SISTER IN LAW HAD A REAL NEED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. WE GAVE OUR OFFERING TO HER FAMILY.
Did we tithe or give offering.... Yes and I feel that God honors that choice to give to the church or to someone in need. But we still need to give no matter what because it definately is not our money.
As far as tithing goes, I am not sure that it fits with the gospel... Jesus is very clear when the rich young man asks Him what to do, He responds by telling him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor... also those in the early church were constantly in community and constantly providing for each other, even by losing all they had worked to gain in this case too, we see people selling everything because of love... honestly I believe that it is easier to tithe then it is to live this way... This way requires giving up everything. It is a difficult thing to reconcile with our culture, but i pray for the humility and conviction to have the heart that Jesus is revealing to my heart. Everything does belong to God.
I think...yes. 1. its a sign that God has our heart (Mt 6:19-21). 2. if funds the expansion of the gospel 3. it enables the Local church to minister to the poor (Lev. 25:35); 4. it places us within a position to experience God's favor (Prov. 11:25). 5. it shows that we see $ as God's and not ours (Lev 27:30). 6. God likes it. Solomon gave the equivalent of a $10M 1 time burnt offering at the dedication of the temple. Just burned it up (the $)...but God liked it. He alone is worthy of such an offering. 7. There's also offerings (2 Cor 9:7) and Alms (Mt. 6:3-4). and finally 8. We (Christians) already have a reputation for being cheap...no need to add to that reputation.
So, all that to say, while it can be debated if i have to answer with a yes or no, I would say Yes, I think we are supposed to tithe.
see you in a few
Post a Comment
<< Home