You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?: A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving

By David A. Croteau

Tithing is a well-known church practice in our day and age, but do church-goers really practice it? When did the concept of tithing begin? How is it justified? What does the Bible say about it?
You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe? is a detailed study on the controversial topic of tithing, covering over 2,000 years of well-known theologians regarding this topic. Dr. Croteau's intense tithing investigation will enable you to explore tithing and related topics in-depth, expounding many misconceptions of tithing as well as aiding in a correct understanding of this popular topic.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Feb 1, 2010
• ISBN: 9781498271554

David A. Croteau

David A. Croteau (PhD Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He edited and contributed to the forthcoming Perspective on Tithing and contributed to What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About (2008).

Book preview

You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?

A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving

David A. Croteau

2008.Pickwick_logo.jpg

You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?

A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving

McMaster Divinity College Press Theological Studies Series 3

Copyright © 2010 David A. Croteau. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

McMaster Divinity College Press

1280 Main Street West

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

L8S 4K1

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www. wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-405-2

eisbn 13: 978-1-4982-7155-4

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Croteau, David A.

You mean I don’t have to tithe? : a deconstruction of tithing and a reconstruction of post-tithe giving / David A. Croteau.

xvi + 380 p. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographic references and indexes.

McMaster Divinity College Press Theological Studies Series 3

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-405-2

1. Tithes. 2. Tithes — Biblical teaching. I. Title. II. Series.

bv772 c75 2010

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

vol. 1 Steven M. Studebaker, ed., Defining Issues in Pentecostalism: Classical and Emergent

vol. 2 Steven M. Studebaker, The Many Faces of Pentecostalism: The Implications of Global Pentecostalism for North American Pentecostal Theology and Ministry

To Ann

You encouraged me when I wanted to give up.

You supported me when I was weak.

You prayed for me as I struggled.

You exemplify so many of the concepts on giving

described in this book.

Preface

I was driving to work in the fall of 1999 and listening to Christian talk radio. John MacArthur was in the middle of a sermon and he was explaining why the tithe was not applicable to Christians. I had never heard anyone actually challenge the applicability of the tithe before, so this took me totally by surprise. Since my drive to work was about twelve minutes, I heard less than half of the sermon. However, what he said greatly intrigued me.

That night when I got home from work I read every passage in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned the tithe. I re-read every passage in the Pentateuch to try and understand what was being explained. At about two o’clock in the morning, I realized that I was beat: I could not decipher what was being described. I called MacArthur’s radio ministry and ordered the six-part series on tithing. Thus began my journey into this subject; ten years later I have now completed this book.

When my mentor (Andreas Köstenberger) approved this topic for my dissertation, I was not looking forward to the opposition with which the concepts would be received. I had already studied the topic for over five years and the resistance I had met when discussing it with people was, at times, intense. A couple of authors mentioned in this research intrigued me. I called two of them to ask them some questions. Both of them made me realize that this topic was more of a hot-button issue than I had anticipated. The first man said that after he had written his book, every church he visited ostracized him because of his view. He was unable to get a job in ministry, so he went back to school and earned a PhD in journalism and began his second career. He was retired at the time of our conversation and I asked him if he was attending church; sadly he said he was not. The second man commented that he received so much disdain for his view that he quickly left the Baptist denomination.

I pray that this work will be received by gentle hearts open to the attempt I have made to inductively analyze Scripture’s teaching on this complex, important, and very practical subject. My hope is that readers will interact with the content of this book and not attempt to guess at hidden motives or agendas, that ad hominem attacks will remain on the sideline, and that, through dialogue, the evangelical community will strive to come closer to the truth and thus bring glory to our God.

Acknowledgments

There are many to whom I would like to extend my gratitude in regards to my study on this topic. My first dialogue partner was my wife, Ann. Her reflective thoughts, provoking questions, and stimulating conversations helped encourage me through this journey. Others who helped me through conversation include Rob Stansberry, Alan Bandy, Daniel Streett, and Matthew McDill. Dr. Black (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) motivated me to write my first research paper on this topic for one of his seminars. His constructive criticisms were invaluable. Dr. Strickland (Multnomah University) invested in me through an independent study on the law-gospel issues. His meticulous reading, excellent feedback, and generous comments proved to be an important asset to my reflection regarding this research. Drs. Jones and Woodbridge (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) continually urged me to pursue this line of research. The Inter-Library Loan office at Southeastern’s library (especially Robi) were amazingly expedient with the plethora of books I requested as well as helpful regarding the hard-to-find ones. Emily Reesman was very gracious in scrupulously reviewing the 1800+ footnotes and bibliography. Kayla Snow read through the entire manuscript and I appreciate all the necessary editing. My two children, Danielle and D.J., have challenged me with the opportunity to practice teaching these principles to the very young. I’d like to thank my parents, David and Patricia Croteau, who have always been faithful in my life to support me no matter what. I owe them honor as they have birthed me, cared for me, and enabled me in every pursuit I was ever driven to desire. Pastor David Sims (Richland Creek Community Church) and Wayde Howell provided me the opportunity to teach on this topic at their church in Raleigh, North Carolina when we attended there. Pastor Mike O’Brien (Redeeming Grace Baptist Church) gave me the same courtesy in Lynchburg, Virginia. These teaching times were extremely significant as they gave me opportunity to learn how to effectively present this material to those in church settings. My humble gratitude goes to Drs. Porter and Westfall for their willingness to include this book in the McMaster Theological Studies Series. Regarding Dr. Köstenberger: no one has ever pushed me harder to excel than he did. His drive for excellence, his keen eye for editing, his ability to critically analyze, and his encouragement in co-writing two articles on this subject with me remains an essential element in my scholarship, research, and life. He taught me how to think, write, and research better. Most of all, I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ, for giving me the stamina, drive, and ability to complete this project. May every word bring glory to him.

Permissions

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NET) are taken from The NET Bible® Copyright © 2003 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. www.netbible.com. All rights reserved. Quoted by permission.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Inter-national Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB, 1995) are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

Scripture quotations marked (NKJV) are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are taken from the New Revised Stan-dard Version. Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (RSV) are taken from the Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

ANF Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. 10 vols. 1885–1896. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

ASV American Standard Version

BDAG Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Revised and edited by F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDB Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BSac Bibliotheca sacra

ca. circa (approximately)

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CD Classic Dispensationalism

ch. chapter

chs. chapters

CRI Christian Research Institute

CT Christianity Today

d. died

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

esp. especially

ESV English Standard Version

IB Interpreter’s Bible

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JEDP the documentary hypothesis or the Wellhausen hypothesis

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

KJV King James Version

LXX Septuagint

m. Bek. Mishnah Bekhorot

m. Ma’as. S. Mishnah Ma’aser Sheni

m. Ma’as. Mishnah Ma’aserot

m. Yebam. Mishnah Yevamot

MT Masoretic Text

n. note

NAC New American Commentary

NASB New American Standard Bible (1995 update)

NET New English Translation

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIV New International Version

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NKJV New King James Version

NLT New Living Translation

NPNF1 Schaff, Philip, ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. 14 vols. Translated by Gross Alexander. 1886–1889. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

NPNF2 Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. 14 vols. 1890–1900. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

NTCT Non-Theonomic Covenant Theology

OT Old Testament

PD Progressive Dispensationalism

RD Revised Dispensationalism

RSV Revised Standard Version

SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series

TCT Theonomic Covenant Theology

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Edited by R. Laird Harris. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

v. verse

vv. verses

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

YLT Young’s Literal Translation

1

Introduction

Loretta Davis was shocked when she received a letter in 2005 revealing that her membership had been revoked from her church for failing to tithe. When Davis had joined the church she agreed to pay 10 percent of her income to the church, but between January and July of 2005, she unexpectedly found herself in and out of the hospital fifteen times, leaving her unable to pay her $60 tithe from her $592 social security check with her mounting medical bills. The letter from the pastor of her church clarified that they would allow her to attend the church, but not permit her to be a member. ¹

Davis’s true story raises significant questions:

• Is tithing the biblical standard for giving?

• If so, are there any exceptions to this standard?

• Should members be disciplined for not tithing according to the standards laid out in Matthew 18?

• What methods can the church use to make sure members are tithing?

• If tithing is not the standard, what is?

• What should the church have done?

In Davis’s situation, her daughter claimed the church should have been supporting Davis rather than revoking her membership. Can that be biblically supported? While Davis’s tithe story is shocking, the most scandalous story I have heard comes from Africa, where some women have been prostituting themselves in order to pay their tithes with the clergy’s full knowledge!²

The implications for a study on giving are both theological and practical. The priority of the biblical text is paramount for understanding the biblical teaching on tithing and for constructing a new giving paradigm. However, all interpreters come to the biblical text with presuppositions. Therefore, some of these presuppositions will be explored so that the manner in which they function in interpreting the law-gospel relationship can be understood. Tithing offers an excellent case study for the continuity-discontinuity problem between the law and the gospel, since aspects of both are involved. Clarity on this issue can be achieved when the issues are handled carefully and deliberately.³

Giving Trends: A Need for This Study

While the biblical, historical, theological, and hermeneutical issues involved in the study of tithing are important, this study is also necessary on a practical level because it has implications for the support of the American church and of churches throughout the world. The tithing model has been the predominant teaching in American churches for over one hundred years. However, the message does not appear to be getting through. In 1916, 2.9% of all Protestants’ income was given to their churches. In the midst of the Great Depression, giving rose to 3.2% (1933). When the American culture became more affluent in 1955, giving was still at 3.2%. However, in 2006, when Americans were over 569% richer, after taxes and inflation, than in the Great Depression, Protestants were giving 2.6% of their incomes to their churches.⁴ Only about 5% of those who give to the church tithe and only 9% of born-again Christians tithed in 2004.⁵

An examination of the giving of different denominations in the United States reveals that not one denomination truly approaches members giving ten percent. Most are around 2%, with Assemblies of God members giving about 5% and the Southern Baptist members giving about 3%. Both of these denominations emphasize tithing.⁶

As will be shown, one of the motivations for the Tithing Renewal in the late 1800s was the desire to see the gospel spread throughout the world. While giving to overseas ministries in 2005 was $5.2 billion, that number is dwarfed by the following figures: $29 billion for candy (2006); $25 billion on lawn care (2006); $13.5 billion for video game consoles, hand-held devices, games, and accessories (2006); $9.4 billion for domestic box-office receipts (2004); and $9.4 billion for veterinarian care (2006).

Some people have thought that if they could just earn more money, they would give a higher percentage of their income to charity. However, the numbers do not support this as a reality. The highest percentage of giving by an income group is by the lowest income earners: those earning between $5,000 and $9,999.⁷

Table 1. Charitable giving by income

Whatever one’s view on tithing is, it is apparent that Americans, even born-again Christians, are not giving generously and are not approaching 10% in their giving. The predominant model, that God requires a minimum of 10%, has not motivated Christians to give. Therefore, another look at how Scripture commands Christians to give could be helpful in confronting the dilemma presented by the statistics.⁸

Preliminary Hermeneutical Considerations

While each of the following hermeneutical issues could be the subject of an entire monograph by itself, and while not everyone will agree with the conclusions below, the analysis of the biblical texts on tithing should be sufficient by itself to cast doubt on the ongoing validity of this practice beyond the Old Testament era. The study of theological systems and their arguments for the continuation of tithing should demonstrate that tithing is generally inconsistent with the new covenant.

The primary, initial goal of studying any passage of Scripture should be to discover authorial intent.⁹ While the exegetical goal of finding authorial intent will not be argued for here, it is accepted as a given, and while most who take biblical authority seriously agree with it in principle, in practice it is sometimes not evident.

A specific application of authorial intent in exegesis is the issue of primary and secondary meanings. One problem that commonly occurs in studies on the present subject is the failure to distinguish between primary and secondary meanings (which may be on the level of connotation or implication). Confusion arises when an interpreter raises a possible implication of a passage to the level of primary meaning. For example, as will be shown below, in Matt 23:23 Jesus was not arguing for or against the continuation of tithing. While some may interpret that passage as containing a possible inference that tithing should continue, this is still not the primary meaning of the text. While primary statements are explicit propositions or imperatives, secondary statements are derived only incidentally, by implications or by precedent.¹⁰ The interpreter must seek the primary meaning first. This does not relegate secondary meanings to irrelevance, yet it does suggest that details that are incidental to the main point of a given passage should not be the initial focus of interpretation; this would be utilizing the text for purposes other than those intended by the author. Vanhoozer refers to this as unethical exegesis.¹¹ Therefore, if an interpreter understands a text in a manner that does not cohere with the primary meaning, the author’s intent is being compromised.

But can God mean something the author did not intend? The quagmire of sensus plenior has been the subject of considerable debate.¹² Though this cannot be discussed in detail here, Vanhoozer’s sapient conclusion is that a fuller meaning can only emerge at the level of the canon.¹³ Statements must retain their primary emphasis in interpretation. As Fee and Stuart conclude, What is incidental must not become primary, although it may always serve as additional support to what is unequivocally taught elsewhere.¹⁴ Therefore, in keeping with the notion of the primacy of authorial intent and a proper, restrained understanding of sensus plenior, an incidental element in a passage can be used to support a doctrine, but usually not to establish it in the first place in the absence of passages that explicitly teach the doctrine.

Context is integrally tied to authorial intent and primary meanings. Context is an excellent restrainer; it can inform the exegete whether he or she has elevated a secondary meaning to a primary meaning. For example, if one interpreted Heb 7:1–10 to contain the implication that tithing continued, this still does not justify raising it to the level of primary meaning.

Another pitfall interpreters should avoid is equating description with prescription.¹⁵ The mere description of Abraham tithing does not, by itself, necessitate that the practice is prescribed for later believers. For example, interpreters should not maintain that believers must follow Abraham’s example of taking another wife after Sarah died (see Gen 25:1).¹⁶ They may, of course, do so, but it cannot legitimately be argued merely based on Abraham’s example that they must do so.

Another important issue relevant for the present purposes is that of progressive revelation in the history of salvation. While a response to liberal ideas regarding progressive revelation, an evolutionary model, cannot be conducted at this time,¹⁷ one’s understanding is pertinent to the issue at hand. In keeping with the concept of progressive revelation, it seems reasonable to conclude that the New Testament is ultimately determinative for Christian morality and ethics, as well as all other matters.¹⁸ In the concept of progressive revelation, what is in view is not merely the collection of additional sources, but also the advancement in revelation, especially in relation to God’s definitive revelation provided in and through Christ (John 1:17–18; Heb 1:1–3). While God himself did not evolve, there is a development within the writers of Scripture as to how they grasped God’s purpose and plan.¹⁹ Ramm notes that the development includes a clearer expression and higher notions of God and more refined ethical teachings.²⁰

Progressive revelation does not mean that what was prior was less important or unimportant. All of God’s actions in delivering Israel and the different ways the messianic hope was presented were all preparatory and in various ways provisional.²¹ Comparatively, Christ’s work is final: it is once-for-all. The patriarchal narratives lay the foundation for the law, the law for the prophets, and the whole Old Testament for the New Testament.²² How does progressive revelation relate to understanding the biblical text? Packer answers: it is important that these inner links of development be followed out and that each writer’s prior knowledge and assumptions be accurately gauged.²³

One example of progressive revelation must suffice. The presence of certain regulations in the Mosaic law reveals that the Jews had a concern with how Gentiles were to act when in Israel and what a Gentile had to do to become a Jew, that is, to be active in the covenant community. The answers to these questions are vastly different before and after the cross. In Genesis 9 God gave Noah any living animal for food, though he did give certain qualifications. However, in Lev 11:3 and Deut 14:7–8, 10, 12–19, God declares that certain animals are unclean and not allowed to be eaten. Then in Mark 7:19 (cf. Acts 10:10–15) all foods are declared clean. God’s revelation to his people has progressed through time.²⁴ The issue is not so much that God has changed, but that certain aspects of Old Testament teaching have found their fulfillment in Christ.

The issue of the relationship between law and gospel is very complicated and can only be partially dealt with in this book. The scriptural discussions on the old and new covenants provide some seminal information on this issue. First, Jer 31:31–34 declares that the new covenant is different from the old,²⁵ and the author of Hebrews quotes Jer 31:31–34 in Heb 8:8–12 (cf. 10:16–17), applying it to the period in which Christians now live. Second, Matt 5:17–20 says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. Based upon this, Christians should not be surprised, but rather should expect to find differences between God’s expectations in the old and new covenant periods. The New Testament goes as far as to say that there is now a Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) and that salvation has been revealed apart from the Law (Rom 3:23). The nature of this new law is not easy to grasp. However, this is the challenge faced in relation to giving (or tithing) in the new covenant era.

The Approach to This Study

Many academic and non-academic attempts have been made to solve the tithing dilemma. However, most are not a full-orbed look at the issue; certain elements in the debate have been ignored in some discussions. I start with a history of tithing as an important area of study, since arguments for the continuation of tithing have been taken squarely from the evidence compiled in this arena. The biblical text and all references to tithing must also be examined for anyone to claim they have tackled this issue properly. One significant area that is often neglected is the way people’s view of how the law and gospel are related impacts their conclusions on tithing. An analysis of theological systems will take up a significant portion of the book. This appears warranted since it has been so neglected in previous studies. When a theological system is understood, often its view on tithing becomes obvious. Finally, after I have deconstructed tithing, I will construct a new paradigm, a post-tithing paradigm.

1. The story, Wheelchair-Bound Woman Kicked out of Church, originally appeared on the NBC 4 website.

2. Ejejigbe, Nigeria: Adeboye’s Jet. See the following for other tithing stories in the news: Sataline, The Backlash against Tithing; Kang, Commitment to Tithing is Now Rare; Simpson, Salvation Army’s 11th-hour Settlement: Man Who Claims He Was Fired for not Tithing Granted Year’s Salary; National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Credit Card Companies Put ahead of Church Tithing by Controversial 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Law.

3. Regarding the study of the law-gospel relationship, this research will be confined to Evangelical sources due to space limitations. Non-English sources will not be dealt with since their contexts are typically not the debate over the issue of the applicability of the tithe today as are those of sources in English.

4. For these statistics, see Empty Tomb, Inc., The State of Giving through 2006.

5. See Generous Giving, Stats on Generous Giving: Giving and Spending Priorities. See also The Barna Group, New Study Shows Trend in Tithing and Donating. In this article, The Barna Group also noted that between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of adults who tithe stayed between 5 and 7 percent.

6. See Empty Tomb, Inc., The State of Giving through 2006.

7. For these numbers and those in the following chart, see Empty Tomb, Inc., Income Bracket Highlights.

8. For some other articles on giving statistics, see Hansen, Christian History Corner: The Ancient Rise and Recent Fall of Tithing.

9. See Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation; Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Intro-duction to Biblical Interpretation, 5–12, 87–115; Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text?; Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 366–415; and Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 107.

10. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 106.

11. See Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text?, 81–82, 235–36.

12. For example, see Brown, Sensus Plenior; Moo, "Problem of Sensus Plenior," 201–4; Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 123; Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text?, 263–65, 313–14.

13. See Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text?, 264.

14. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 108.

15. See Ibid., 107; Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 263–69.

16. This is not to say that something that is merely described cannot be prescribed. However, there is not a one-to-one correlation. See Duval and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 263–69, for some rules concerning how to discern when a description can be taken prescriptively.

17. However, see Packer, Progressive Revelation, for a rebuttal of liberal views.

18. Contra Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. For a critique of Webb and a defense of the traditional view, see Grudem, Should We Move beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?

19. Packer, Progressive Revelation, 153.

20. Ramm, Special Revelation, 103.

21. Packer, Progressive Revelation, 155.

22. Ramm, Special Revelation, 104.

23. Packer, Progressive Revelation, 157.

24. Two other examples could also be discussed: animal sacrifice (which virtually no one argues should continue based upon its existence prior to the Mosaic law) and the Sabbath (about which much has been written).

25. Jeremiah 31:31–32 declares that the new covenant is not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

2

A History of Tithing in the Christian Church

There has been extensive research on the history of tithing, although R. T. Kendall said the definitive statement on [tithing] has yet to be written. ¹ Works that contain both sufficient discussions on the biblical text and on theological issues, as well as paying adequate attention to history, have been few. Therefore, much of the following section on the history of research will draw on previous discussions, ² with additional sources examined and conclusions double-checked. Not all people or groups will be discussed; however, the major figures from each era will be discussed and minor figures will be included in the lists in the appendices.

Many scholars who have ventured to research this area have presented the data and conclusions in a manner to favor their own conclusions. These tendencies will be noted in the footnotes.

Since the New Testament contains only seven explicit references to tithing, it is important to determine the view of tithing in the early church. Also, since one of the popular arguments for tithing is that it has always been practiced by the church,³ clarifying whether this is true is important for discerning the validity of this argument. How did the early church interpret Old and New Testament references to tithing? Did the early church practice tithing? If not, what were the alternative principles used? Church history will be examined to decide if tithing has been universally practiced throughout church history and to determine how key individuals and groups reached their conclusions. The discussion will be broken into four parts: (1) the Pre-Reformation Period: 100–1517 (e.g., Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas), (2) the Reformation Period: 1517–1648 (e.g., Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli), (3) the Post-Reformation Period: 1648–1873 (e.g., Wesley, Quakers, Baptists, and Spurgeon), and (4) the Tithing Renewal Period: 1873–Present (e.g., Lansdell, Ryrie, and Murray).

The Pre-Reformation Period: AD 100–1517

The Ante-Nicene Period: AD 100–325

Most researchers have concluded that tithing never ceased in the early church. However, other scholars have disagreed.⁴ Four extant writings⁵ from the second century are important for the history of tithing. Clement of Rome (ca. AD 100)⁶ urged Christians to give their offerings systematically, thus following God’s laws.⁷ Clement makes no direct mention of tithing. The only evidence used to conclude that Clement inferred tithing⁸ was his use of the term laws. However, his discussion on Christian offerings was more than likely dependent upon Paul’s epistles (e.g., 1 Cor 16). There is not adequate evidence to support the supposition that Clement advocated tithing.

The Didache (ca. AD 100),⁹ also called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, contains numerous references to giving. In 1:5–6, the text discusses the sharing of resources among Christians. The only possible allusion to tithing could be the statement that giving should be done according to the commandment. However, since 1:6 says, Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving it, it appears that the Mosaic law of tithing is not the referent, since responsibility is placed with the giver to discern the worthiness of the recipient. The Didache exhorts Christians to be givers rather than takers (1:5; 4:5–8; 5:2; 15:4). It contains one statement similar to statements in Acts 2 and 4 about communalism (4:8). The text includes teaching similar to 1 Cor 9:14, that ministers of the gospel have a right to live from the gospel (11:6, 12; 13:1–2). Didache 13:3–7 discusses how Christians are to give first fruits, stating that prophets are the Christians’ high priest.¹⁰ However, it does not equate first fruits with a portion that was the (divine) right of ministers of the gospel: If, however, you have no prophet [minister of the gospel], give [the first fruits] to the poor (13:4). Finally, 13:7 says to take the first fruits of money and clothing and whatever [else] you own as you think best and give them according to the commandment. A problem occurs when the text says both to give as you think best and to give according to the commandment. Some have said this is a contradiction.¹¹ However, the phrase as you think best refers to the items that were considered liable to first fruits and according to the commandment probably refers to the instructions just given.¹² Therefore, no clear statement of abrogation or continuation exists in the Didache.

Justin Martyr (AD 100–165) provided an early, detailed account of church services. He said that Christians met on Sundays and read the writings of the Apostles and prophets. After an exhortation to do good and pray, the love feast took place. They took the offering at the end of the service and those who were wealthy were free to give as they saw fit. The church used this offering to help the poor, widows, and others in need. There were two parts to the offering. The first consisted of food: the congregation consumed part of the offering at the love feast and part of the offering was taken to those who were absent. The remainder of the offering was for the poor. After this meal, they partook of the Lord’s Supper. Finally, they took a second offering that included both money and food. This offering was for the clergy and the poor.¹³ Justin’s description of the offering neglects to mention tithing. Furthermore, his emphasis on personal responsibility in giving and that giving was mainly the duty of the rich, argues strongly against Justin advocating tithing.¹⁴ All of Justin’s explicit references to tithing are either incidental or quotes from Scriptures containing the word.¹⁵

Irenaeus’s (AD 130–200) Against Heresies provides an early account of the law-gospel relationship.¹⁶ Even though in Against Heresies Irenaeus says instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, the context shows that Irenaeus is referring to Jesus's widening of the law for Christians, not abrogating it.¹⁷ Furthermore, Irenaeus also says instead of adultery and instead of murder. If by instead of he means that Jesus abolished the law, then he was permitting adultery and murder.¹⁸ While Jesus's understanding of adultery and murder was stricter than the rabbinic understanding, he still forbade adultery and murder. Therefore, this passage appears to contain evidence that Irenaeus believed that Jesus did something to the law of tithing, but not necessarily that he abrogated it. Irenaeus also said that the Jews gave tithes, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes.¹⁹ In this text, Irenaeus places the relationship between tithing and Christianity in contrast (but).²⁰ Finally, he states what is obligatory for Christians: We are bound . . . to offer to God the first fruits of His creation.²¹ Irenaeus’s focus was on Christians giving abundantly. Powers concludes, the whole spirit of Irenaeus was that the law of the tithe had been abrogated,²² and Feinberg says that the church fathers, including Irenaeus, emphasized Christian freedom in giving.²³ Murray says that Irenaeus rejected tithing as a giving paradigm for Christianity; he did not consider tithing the starting point but instead he emphasized giving and sharing on a communal level.²⁴ Finally, Vischer concludes, Irenaeus thus regards the commandment to tithe as a preliminary stage. Christ has led us beyond this.²⁵ In the end, Irenaeus is ambiguous as to his stance on tithing. If anything, he appears to have rejected it and not required it.

In the third century, five writings prove pertinent.²⁶ Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215), the forerunner to Origen in the Alexandrian school, considered tithing to be in the same category as the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee. Therefore, since God gave the Mosaic law for the good of humanity, tithing, as well as the Sabbatical Year and Year of Jubilee, should not be viewed as compulsory, but should be done for the spiritual well-being of the giver.²⁷ Clement provides a good example of how some figures in church history have been treated unfairly in tithing discussions. Babbs claimed that Clement concluded that tithing was still in effect for Christians, but he never placed those comments in the context of Clement also requiring the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee.²⁸ Christians who advocate tithing might want to think twice before claiming Clement to be on their side due to the nature of how he reached his conclusions.

Tertullian (AD 160–230), in his Apology, stated that churches had a treasury chest and Christians made contributions every month: on the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary.²⁹ The church used these gifts for the poor, orphans, elderly, and others in need. Tertullian also emphasized that they held all things in common, except their wives.³⁰ While Powers states that Tertullian believed that tithing was seemingly the minimum, he provided no evidence for Tertullian ever saying this. In fact, Tertullian’s own statements above are inconsistent with a mandatory tithe.³¹ His description of giving is more in line with the contributions of Greek associations (e1ranoj)³² than tithing.

Origen (AD 186–255), in his work Against Celsus, said that Christians gave their first fruits to God.³³ Based upon Origen’s belief in giving first fruits, Powers assumed that Origen also believed in tithing.³⁴ However, Origen commented on tithing specifically. He said that since Jesus wanted the scribes and Pharisees to tithe (Matt 23:23), and his disciples’ righteousness was supposed to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20), that Christians should give far more abundantly than the scribes and Pharisees.³⁵ However, rather than this being an exhortation to tithe, Origen said explicitly that he did not do any of this (referring to giving tithes and first fruits). A final reference to tithing from Origen contains an application. After describing some of the Levitical tithing system, he correlates full-time ministers of the gospel to Levites and priests; however, he does not exhort Christians to tithe.³⁶ Furthermore, some of Origen’s statements about the Mosaic law may be informative for any conclusion regarding his view of tithing. He said, for we do not regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of the opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation³⁷ and that it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses.³⁸ Therefore, Origen may be the earliest Father to reject tithing explicitly.

Cyprian (d. AD 258), Bishop of Carthage, said that Christians in his time were not giving even . . . the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store.³⁹ In another statement, he said that the clergy receive as they do in the gifts and donations of their brethren the tenth portion, as it were, of the fruits of the earth.⁴⁰ The emphasis of this passage is on the clergy receiving adequate support for their ministry, as the Levites and priests did in the Old Testament. Rather than urging Christians to tithe, he used the phrase as it were, which, according to Murray, suggests that the reference to tithing is by way of comparison rather than an indication that Cyprian was instructing his readers to comply literally with this Old Testament principle.⁴¹ Futhermore, G. W. Clarke said that this phrase proved that tithing was not practiced during Cyprian’s day.⁴² Cyprian appeared to believe that the tithe was the minimum and that it was voluntary.⁴³

Finally, a document from Syria around AD 225,⁴⁴ the Didascalia Apostolorum, contains some important thoughts on tithing and the law-gospel relationship. Regarding the former, the document says that the laws of the Second Legislation, which were all the laws given after the Ten Commandments, should be avoided; they were only given after Israel worshipped idols in the wilderness. Jesus fulfilled the law, that is, set us loose from the bonds of the Second Legislation.⁴⁵ While it may appear at first that the document supports tithing to the bishop,⁴⁶ it also says: "No more be bound with sacrifices and oblations, and with sin offerings, purifications, and vows . . . nor yet with tithes and firstfruits. . . . for it was laid upon them [i.e., the Israelites] to give all these things as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things. . . . Now thus shall your righteousness abound more than their tithes and firstfruits and part-offerings, when you shall do as it is written: Sell all thou hast, and give to the poor."⁴⁷ Thus, the old system of tithing had no place in Christianity since a new system had been instituted by the New Testament.

In the fourth century, the Apostolic Constitutions gave separate instructions for bishops regarding two issues: (1) tenths and first fruits; and (2) free will offerings. This document also stated that tithes were the command of God.⁴⁸ Furthermore, the Constitutions likened bishops to priests and Levites, and the tabernacle to the Holy Catholic Church. It exhorted all Christians to give their first fruits and tithes. While the Constitutions contains the strongest statement about tithing in the Ante-Nicene period,⁴⁹ this passage may be of a much later date than the rest of the document.⁵⁰

During this period, nothing was said (directly) about tithing by Ignatius of Antioch,⁵¹ Polycarp of Smyrna, Quadratus, Tatian, Hippolytus, Kallistos, and Novatian.⁵² In the second century, Irenaeus apparently believed that Jesus abrogated tithing, but this is ultimately unclear. Clement of Rome’s comments were inconclusive and could have been based upon 1 Corinthians 16. There is no good reason to infer tithing from his writings. The Didache never discussed obligatory giving or tithing; it did state the principle of 1 Cor 9:14 that ministers have a right to live from the gospel. Justin Martyr’s description of contributions never mentioned tithing, though it would have fit well into the context if Christians practiced tithing. Justin’s description of contributions offers support against the idea that tithing was being practiced in the churches during his time. In the third century, Clement of Alexandria concluded that Christians needed to tithe. However, his support of keeping the Sabbatical Year and Year of Jubilees renders his view on issues in the law-gospel relationship suspect. Tertullian’s description of giving is incompatible with the conclusion that Christians must tithe. Origen specifically said that he did not tithe and Cyprian’s comments could possibly be understood to mean that tithing was not practiced in his time. The Didascalia Apostlorum explicitly said that Christians were not bound to give tithes or first fruits.

There were no statements made in the Ante-Nicene period (except the possibly spurious statement in the Constitutions) that made tithing (ecclesiastically) compulsory. Most references to tithing were incidental, that is, Old and New Testament texts that contain the reference were quoted. The context of these writings makes it clear that tithing was not the focus of the discussion; tithing is only mentioned since the text being used referred to it.⁵³ Generally, the Ante-Nicene Fathers expected believers to give abundantly regardless of the percentage. Powers concludes, So sincere, in the beginning of Christianity, was the devotion of believers that their gifts to the Evangelical priesthood far exceeded what the tenth would have been.⁵⁴ The collections in the early church were generally for the poor and support of the clergy. As will be seen below, Christians were exhorted to tithe as the church grew.⁵⁵ However, the conclusion of Babbs that the early church was of a singular unanimity of opinion that the law of the tithe was still binding is a gross overstatement.⁵⁶

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Period: AD 325–604

Many more references to tithing are found in the Nicene and Post-Nicene period. However, a difficulty that continually arises in the history of tithing comes up in this period. Once the separation between the Christian church and the government was ended by Constantine (fourth century), it becomes increasingly difficult to understand if those commenting on tithing are referring to a religious duty or a governmental tax.

Constantine (ca. AD 325) had a large impact on Christianity while he was emperor. It was under Constantine that the church and state were united. Constantine himself was a generous giver to churches. However, no mention has been found of him collecting or paying tithes.⁵⁷ Basil of Caesarea (AD 370) exhorted Christians to pay tithes⁵⁸ and Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 365) mentioned first fruits,⁵⁹ but no reference to tithes has

Reviews for You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?

[pacof81234 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This book so far is blowing the lid off of madatory tithing. So far from what I have read, all christians since Jesus' death and the early church has never had 100 percent agreement on tithing money. In fact any person who uses old testement scripture to support tithing is committing the worst kind of unethical exegesis by elevating the secondary meaning over the primary meaning of a text and thereby compromising the intent of the author, the text, and overall comprimising the intent of God for his people. Learn to give by grace not by legelism.