The Lord's Portion: the Tithe (1 of 2)

Introduction

When we think of the tithe as “the Lord’s portion,” in NT times, what automatically comes to the natural, carnal thinking Christian’s mind is the literal, natural tithe, or “money;” even though (if the truth were really known), money wasn’t allowed to be offered when one tithed in the OT under the law of Moses. Abraham and Jacob might have offered such items, but it was absolutely forbidden under the Law. The produce of agriculture was what was only allowed to be offered in the tithe, nothing more. And if it was too far for the traveler to carry his tithe to the temple, he could exchange it only for silver; but then once at the temple he had to exchange it back into agricultural goods (Deut. 14:24-26). This is what the rules under the Law of God mandated for those under law of the tithe! The tithe under the Mosaic Law was in no uncertain terms entirely agrarian. This also presupposes that those with other trades and means of livelihood outside of an agrarian trade and livelihood were not commanded to tithe. So where is the doctrine that is being taught today with regards to what should be tithed, coming from? Clearly, not from above!

So, the concept of “money” being offered as one’s tithe, as we shall soon see, is a foreign idea to the Scriptures, being clearly a commandment and doctrine of man’s making, but not of God’s making. But when we come to the NT understanding of what or who is the Lord’s portion, agriculture or money is not what is understood to be the Lord’s portion at all. It is all about people, and lot’s of them! Tithing of one’s agriculture (let alone money) is the farthest thing from the Lord’s mind in the New Testament. Such an obsession, is of our own making, not of God’s.

Sure, these “people” of God are often taken care of through the material sustenance of others in the body of Christ, which often includes “money;” but it is not the tithe, the firstfruits, or any other prescribed offering by way of a commandment extrapolated from the OT that provides for these needs. It is through the freewill love offerings of the saints. It is through the Spirit of liberty. Never for one minute in the NT do we see this occurring in any other way, i.e., by way of enforcement, coercion, or out of a commandment. It is not too difficult for one to see that when they become a Christian that everything in the NT no longer works by legalisms, or by set rules and regulations, but by love. It is always faith working by love. It is obedience working through love from the heart and not by a set of outward laws and regulations.

Someone was once noted as saying that when we get to heaven there will not be a bunch of “thou shalt not’s” posted all around us. We won’t need them then, and we don’t need them now. They served their purpose for the time then being until the faith that works by love would one day be revealed under our new covenant of grace (cf. Gal. 3:19), and God’s laws would be written upon new hearts of flesh and no longer upon tablets of stone. If someone wants that kind of fence put around them to guard their conduct and actions then they will just have to go back to being under their former husband, the law, and not under grace; an obedience by way of harsh and demanding commandments as opposed to an obedience that works by love. When God gets a hold of the sinners heart he is like a Zacchaeus who comes down from the tree crying, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount” (Lke. 19:8). Now that is faith working by love! It goes beyond just a set of rules of do’s and don’ts, and even exceeds those requirements. It exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The one works only by legalisms, the other by unbridled love.

Getting back on the subject of “money,” we have all heard the saying, “home is where the heart is,” well, for many today, money is where their heart is. God isn’t about money. But unfortunately for many of us it is all just about that—money! And for some, it’s lot’s of it. And anything short of this is just missing out on God’s blessing and prosperity for one’s life. But that is another subject for another time. Suffice it to say, it is out of such an obsession, and need, that “money” has become the predominant thing in focus when it comes to tithing, blinding us to the truth of what God is really trying to teach us with regards to this wonderful and marvelous ceremony called “the Lord’s tithe.”

But like all things done ceremonially in the OT economy and way of doing things, for God, the tithe had far greater implications spiritually speaking than just a portion of literal proportions that was to be set aside to the Lord and for His priests. The tithe, like all the other OT ceremonies, had far greater implications than just what appeared to the “natural” eye. And when one thinks of “the Lord’s portion,” what should “spiritually” come to our minds when we think about all of this is, people, not agriculture—and clearly, not money! This is, I believe, the “spiritual” teaching that is behind this small “portion” of agriculture that was dedicated entirely to the Lord. It was the fruit of the harvest or of the field. A “fruit” which Christ says we all are now (Jhn. 4:35-36 et al). What this OT type teaches us is that a portion of the harvest, of the agriculture of the field, belonged to the Lord as a portion, inheritance, and allotment; not just for the priests, but also for the Lord. The tithe, like the firstborn and firstfruits, and of which “firstfruits” were likewise enjoyed by the priests and typical of God’s people, all belonged to God by His sovereign choice and election. As such, when one really starts to think about it, all of the types and shadows in the Law of Moses had to do with nothing more than with two simple concepts: Christ and His people. It is Christ and His temple spiritually made up of the building blocks of His people. All of the types and shadows were to that end, bar none. That’s it, par excellence! That is the end of story, the bottom line. Mystery solved! But for many, they just can’t see past the typology of all these things and are still focused on their literal and carnal observances in some way, shape, manner or form. And it is a grave mistake to think like this. And unbeknownst to many of us, if we “rebuild what God has destroyed,” it is we who become the “transgressors” (cf. Gal. 2:18), not those who choose not to return to the former commandments and way of life as prescribed under the laws of Moses. Think about that for a moment. If we as the ministers of the gospel of grace put our congregations back under a yoke of slavery in making it obligatory to obey commandments that neither we nor others were able to bear, then we are the ones who are sinning, not them! Many of the ministers of God today have turned things upside down with regards to all of this. It is they who have become the ministers of sin, not those who choose not to tithe! God’s word to such ministers, is this,

Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock….Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because My flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because My shepherds did not search for My flock but cared for themselves rather than for My flock, therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for My flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue My flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them….Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, I will save My flock, and they will no longer be plundered (Ezk. 34:2-3, 8-10, 22).

I have spent a lot of time dealing with the “typology” of the tithe in my other article, The Typology of the Tithe, Firstfruits and Firstborn; so I won’t belabor that topic here. But suffice it to say that I mention all this to make us realize that God had more in mind with regards to the tithe than literal, physical offerings and sacrifices. Like the firstfruits and the firstborn, the tithe is no longer something we outwardly practice, it is who we are! Like those other two particular offerings and sacrifices, we are God’s offering of the tithe. As those sacrifices and offerings were representative of who we are, so God’s tithe is to be similarly understood. The tithe, along with those other types is, quite frankly, God’s allotted portion and inheritance, which is us! But what I would like to focus on here in this article is mainly the history of the tithe throughout the Bible and its practical application, if any, for us today.

I originally titled this article, The Tithe of Malachi. It was something I put together for myself, never thinking necessarily that some day I would be offering it en mass to the people as I am now doing. At the beginning I wrote this for no other reason than for my own edification; so that I could have something to fall back on when ever someone tried to argue that the tithe was still applicable for the Christian today. I also knew that, like all the other sacrifices in the OT, that the tithe had to have some kind of spiritual import and connotation behind it. This is just the nature of all those typical sacrifices and offerings—every single one of them! It was a subject that I fought long and hard with over the years when I was contemplating whether or not it was right for those who say that we must still practice tithing today.

My wife and I tithed for more years than we can remember. And I can remember the day when I realized that it is not commanded of us and decided to no longer do it. Just the uneasiness of not doing something that you have been so programmed to do year after year after year was not an easy decision to make. If we were wrong in all this, would we be cursed with a curse for no longer observing the tithe? After all, that is the main reason that many unsuspecting Christians are observing this ceremony—strictly out of fear! That is the one thing that has kept most naïve Christians from doing otherwise. But my wife and I did it. We cut those ties that were binding us. And rather than experience the “curse” of the law, which is really an oxymoron when you think about it, since we are no longer under the law of Moses with all of its attending curses, my wife and I have experienced nothing but blessings upon blessing. Honestly, we have enjoyed more prosperity today than we ever did while we were tithing. Don’t get me wrong, we were blessed. But we have never seen any depletion of God’s material blessings upon our lives. The “devourer” has not devoured our material sustenance. It has only increased exponentially over the years since we began to no longer tithe. With all of my heart I can truly say that our material sustenance has not been cursed with a curse.

The “tithe of Malachi” is often used by many today to teach that Christians are to tithe, and if they do not do so God will “curse” them with a curse. But the “tithe of Malachi” was not written to N.T. believers, but to Jews who were under the law of Moses (and more specifically to their leaders such as the priests), and who all were under the curses of the law for disobeying such laws. Let’s all get this straight once and for all, the “curse” for not tithing is a Jewish stipulation under the Mosaic covenant of law. It is not a Christian stipulation. How could it be that so many have missed this? I’ll tell you why: Deceit blinds a person to anything anyone else can ever say to the contrary. Otherwise, “deceit” would not be called “deceit.”

It is not valid for some to contend that while the law’s “curse” expired, the law itself still remains intact. Such talk is ludicrous! Paul stated that “as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal. 3:10). The law and the curses are joined together. The two go hand in hand together. And a law, with no penalty, is no law at all! And the fact of the matter is, the entire law, together with all of its demands and curses, has passed away. Only fifteen verses later Paul declares: “we are no longer under a tutor [the law of Moses]” (v. 25). How can such a point possibly be ignored? It can only be ignored if one begins to presume upon such texts that Paul only had our “justification” in mind, but not our “sanctification” in mind, and argue, as will be seen below, that we are still under the Mosaic Law with regards to our sanctification. Such talk is doubletalk and a quick sleight of hand. But the wise child of God is not ignorant of such devices.

We as God’s pastors, preachers and teachers have no authority to misuse the law like this, picking and choosing what we deem appropriate for us to keep as opposed to what we deem as inappropriate to keep. It is all or none. The law of the tithe is no different. And we definitely have no authority from God to redefine it in terms that are fitted to how we think it should be observed. God’s law is clear on that also. And this is exactly what many have done with regards to the Ten Commandments. So, if we are going to tithe according to Malachi and the law of Moses, then we had better be prepared to observe it exactly as God’s law has prescribed how it was to be observed, with no deviation from His law to change it and do something contrary and foreign, or should I say, “strange” to the text. It would be no different than offering up before the Lord “strange fire.” And that would indeed be a curse to be reckoned with if any were to believe that this commandment under the law is written to us. If it is, then we must then obey every jot and tittle, with no deviations whatsoever.

This law of the tithe, as well as all of the other O.T. laws, has no longer any relevance upon the N.T. believer. The only standards of conduct upon the N.T. believer are those that have to do with morality. But even the ten commandments, as such, are no longer a part of our new covenant by-laws under Christ’s covenant. Otherwise, we would have to obey them in every detail according to the strict letter of the law as laid out in the Decalogue (again, it’s all or none). Consider also the fact that the death penalty was attached to each of the Ten Commandments (see Num. 15:32ff). If the Ten Commandments are still binding upon us today, where are the punishments that are to be meted out for their disobedience, i.e., death for breaking the Sabbath, etc.?

Even all of the civil and the ceremonial laws (which includes the firstborn, the firstfruits, and even the tithe), are no longer binding upon Christians today. They have all been abrogated at the cross—fulfilled completely in the person and work of Christ and cancelled as a law-code of conduct for the believer. And “when the priesthood changes, a change of Law also of necessity takes place” (Heb. 7:12, Weymouth’s trans.). The Old Testament laws have been completely taken out of the way for us, and we now serve Christ in newness of Spirit, no longer in the oldness of the letter. Anyone who does not see this is nearsighted and blind, not being able to see afar off what God has really done for us. For further thoughts on the law’s relation to the new covenant believer, please read my footnote below.[1]

Now regardless of what one believes is to be the Christian’s standard and code of ethics, the bottom line is that if one is going to keep the Mosaic Law of the tithe, even quoting Malachi for its support, then they had better start observing the whole law with regards to the instructions pertaining to tithing under that law. And not just those laws pertaining to the tithe, but to all the laws under the Law of Moses. And in addition, if they persist on keeping one, five, ten or however many laws they seem deemed to enforce upon our consciences, then they are required to keep them all in every detail.

Keeping the Law of Moses verses Keeping the Law of Christ

We are not under the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, or any other old covenant for that matter; we are under our new covenant with Christ. And by walking in the Spirit, by love, we love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength; and we love our neighbor as our self. We love the law because the Spirit of that law now resides within us. We are living, breathing, walking examples and epistles of that law. It is the epitome of who we are. We are spiritual. And we therefore walk in the Spirit that is behind those spiritual laws. It’s as simple as that! There is no need to make it any more complicated than this. It is the simple life of faith, walking by love. And when one begins to truly see all this in such a manner, it is truly liberating indeed. We serve and obey God no longer out of fear, but out of love. Love fulfills all God’s righteous, holy, and spiritual commandments. We are not under the ministration of death, but under the ministration of the life-giving Spirit which doesn’t kill, doesn’t steal, doesn’t bear false witness, doesn’t commit adultery or fornication, isn’t insubordinate to our parents and others around us, etc., etc. As said elsewhere, it is not about a list of do’s and don’ts, but of “wants;” wanting to do from a heart that is led by the Spirit of God what we couldn’t do before. It is now in our nature to naturally do so. For such individuals whom the Son sets free, there is no need of outward commandments. By the life-giving Spirit within us we are now a law unto ourselves, if I may say so reverently use the term. As one person I heard express it, “we are in law and the law in us.” It is who we are. The spiritual law is now written in our hearts and we serve God out of love, not out of bondage again to fear.

Paul said in Galatians that natural Jerusalem, which answers to Mt. Sinai under the Mosaic Law, is in bondage and enslaved with the rest of her children, and that we are not children of that slave woman but of the free woman from above. So, by analogy, we are not “the children of” the slave woman who is under law, and neither are we “married” or “joined” to such a husband also called the Law. We have been released from being “under the law” that we might be free to be joined to and under the submission of another. This is what Paul says in Romans 6. We are slaves to God, not slaves to the law of sin and death. The former husband (the Law) lifted no finger to enable us to obey, but Christ, our new husband, enables us to live out what the righteous requirements of the law demanded. A good tree naturally produces good fruit. It isn’t forced or coerced. It is just a natural by-product of who we are as a good tree.

John MacArthur has noted that, “grace has its own law, a higher, liberating law.”[2] Just as sin is “a law,” so is the Spirit of life and grace “a law.” The puritan writer John Owen, though he believes that the ten commandments in their entirety is still in effect today as one’s standard of conduct to live by (except for their penalties and strict observance), he said with regards to this “written” law and “the principle” of the law of sin and the law of the Spirit of life and grace in Christ,

The first thing observable is the compellation here used by the apostle [in Rom. 7:21-23], he calls indwelling sin “a law.” It is a law.

A law is taken either properly for a directive rule, or improperly for an operative effective principle, which seems to have the force of a law. In its first sense, it is a moral rule which directs and commands, and sundry ways moves and regulates, the mind and the will as to the things which it requires or forbids. This is evidently the general nature and work of a law. Some things it commands, some things it forbids, with rewards and penalties, which move and impel men to do the one and avoid the other.

Hence, in a secondary sense, an inward principle that moves and inclines constantly unto any actions is called a law. The principle that is in the nature of everything, moving and carrying it towards its own end and rest, is called the law of nature. In this respect, every inward principle that inclineth and urgeth unto operations or actings suitable to itself is a law.

So, Romans 8:2, the powerful and effectual working of the Spirit and grace of Christ in the hearts of believers is called “The law of the Spirit of life.” And for this reason doth the apostle here call indwelling sin a law. It is a powerful and effectual indwelling principle, inclining and pressing unto actions agreeable and suitable unto its own nature. (Works, vol. 6, Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers; copied from public domain online).

So, here, Owen recognizes that both sin and the Spirit of grace are "laws," noting that, “in this respect, every inward principle that inclineth and urgeth unto operations or actings suitable to itself is a law.”

The one law, sin, is “inclining and urging” just the opposite of what God’s holiness and morality requires, which is: to worship no other gods; make no idols; not to blaspheme His name; keep the Sabbath (now inwardly); honor your father and mother; don’t murder; don’t commit adultery; don’t steal; don’t lie; and don’t covet. The other law, the Spirit of grace, is “inclining and urging” every single one of these things just listed above, and even more so beyond what is just written to do or not to do.

With all these thoughts and those of John Owen’s in mind, think now about this for one moment: The sinner needs no outward laws to do what his sinful nature just naturally “inclines and urges” him to do. He just “naturally” does the opposite of what has just been described in the list of the ten laws above. And now also think about this: In contradistinction to the sinner, the saint also needs no outward laws to do what his righteous nature wrought in Christ just now naturally “inclines and urges” him to do. Contrary to the sinner, the saint now naturally does exactly what the law says he is to do, and even more so! And this is why I believe Paul could say to Timothy, “the law is not made for a righteous man,” because the saint is the epitome of what that law is. He is a living, walking epistle of the letter of that law.

Neither the saint nor the sinner need laws to make them do what just comes “naturally” for each of them to do. And this is why neither one needs the law of Moses. Because regardless of the law of Moses, the one will be judged as a sinner in Adam whether he has had the law of Moses or not (Rom. 2:12); and the other, judged as a saint in Christ who works by faith through love and judged according to the higher “law of liberty” (James 2:12). In other words, as James notes, the unmerciful will not receive mercy, but mercy working by love triumphs over judgment. The “law of liberty” is not being back under the law of Moses with the help of the Holy Spirit to uphold it, as some suppose, but is being under the law and rule of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus that Paul talks about in Rom. 8:2, and which against such, there are no laws. Such people no longer need laws! Christ’s Spirit is truly the law that liberates us as a force to be reckoned with. Such people now only do what they are “naturally” born to do, which is “love working no ill to his neighbor.” Everything is as it was before the law of Moses was “added,” but with those of us who now obey God through the motivation and influences of God’s Holy Spirit it, in the words of Owen again, “inclines and urges” us “unto operations or actings suitable to itself.”

James’ arbitrary usage of the law in verses 8-11 is for illustrative purposes only to prove a point that even under the law, “favoritism” is no less sinful than any of the other laws, because if one law is broken, such as the Royal Law by showing favoritism, then one is guilty of breaking all the laws (which also reveals to us that he can’t be really saying here that we are under the law of Moses). Nevertheless, showing favoritism is just as sinful as breaking any of the laws. Therefore, James says in light of this fact, “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the [higher] law that gives freedom.” It would be like the author of Hebrews who said, “Anyone who rejected the Law of Moses died without mercy….How much more sorer punishment, suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God…and has done despite to the Spirit of Grace” (10:28-29, AKJV). Neither James or the author Hebrews is attempting to establish the rule of Moses as our final arbiter, but on the contrary, trampling under foot the Son of God and doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace will bring one under a sorer condemnation, and we need to speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law of Spirit of grace. As John Gill notes with regards to James’ words above, “Heathens will be judged by the law of nature, Jews by the law of Moses, and those who live under the Gospel dispensation, according to the Gospel of Christ.” It is the same gospel of the word of truth that we received at our new birth in James 1:18; that was engrafted into our souls after “having put aside” all filthiness and evil in James 1:21 (YLT); and which is the perfect law of liberty in James 1:25 that liberates us to walk with God. Such a law of “liberty” that A. T. Robertson says, “rests on the work of Christ, [and] whose truth sets us free.”

In Adam all spiritually and physically die, whereas in Christ all are spiritually and physically made alive. Neither one is motivated by the law of Moses. The one is motivated by sin; the other by righteousness and love. At this venture the law becomes a moot point for both. The Jew is just more accountable to God because he does have the law, but regardless, all are judged as sinners whether it be by their own consciences or by the law of Moses. But the truth of the matter is that both the sinner and the saint are inclined or “bent” on doing what they are both born to do. The one continues in sin, the other does not. And they both do what they do, not by outward commandments, but by “a law” (as Owen rightly notes), or principle of nature that resides in each individual, “inclining and pressing into actions agreeable and suitable unto its own nature.” Hallelujah! When one truly sees this, they are free indeed. Neither are motivated by legalisms, but by either the Spirit of life unto holiness in Christ Jesus, or by the spirit of sin and death in Adam. “So wherefore came the law,” Paul asks? The law of Moses was nothing more than transitional “until the seed should come” (cf. Gal. 3:19). And “now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Gal. 3:25). We operate by a “higher, liberating law,” the law of Christ!

Someone might ask, “Well, what about the Sabbath? Aren’t we to keep that law?” My answer to that is, “We are keeping that rest in the person and work of Christ.” What was once an out outward, physical, typical observance and commandment is now a living reality that is realized and lived out in the fleshly tables of our hearts. We are now living that outward show of a rest, spiritually within our hearts. That is what God meant when He said He would write those ten commandments in our hearts. We spiritually realize all of those commandments in the person and work of Christ by His life-giving Spirit which now resides in us. We no more have a literal rest on the seventh-day Sabbath, than we are to no longer pick up sticks, sacrifice lambs on an altar, wash our hands and feet in a laver, put blood on the doorposts, or sprinkle blood on a mercy seat, etc. We just cannot arbitrarily choose to observe one law over and against all the rest. I defer all my readers to my article entitled: Nailing Down the Sabbath for a fuller explanation on all of this.

Every Ceremony in the Law of Moses was a Type and Shadow

Now everything concerning the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon, with all their attending architecture, furniture, utensils, sacrifices, festivals and offerings had a spiritual meaning behind them. All spoke of things that were to be revealed in God’s own time concerning Christ and His Church. They were “mysteries” that were not fully understood until the cross of Christ (Eph. 3:2-10; Heb. 8:5, 13; 9:8-10, 23-24; 10:1). And if everything, including the firstborn and firstfruits, had a “spiritual” meaning or concept behind them, then why not the tithe? If it didn’t, then it would be the only offering that didn’t. The “ONLY” one! And I don’t think anyone when seriously contemplating all of this would go so far as to believe that. Yet, those who have not reasonably thought through all of this, have done just that!

The New Testament is replete with examples of the “spiritual” meanings behind these physical natural concepts—and the tithe should be understood no differently. The tithe, like the firstfruits and the firstborn, has just as much of a “spiritual” meaning behind it as these other sacrifices and offerings do. And like the firstborn and firstfruits, the tithe was just as much a physically giving up of something in dedication to God as those offerings were, but nonetheless, like those other offerings, it too has a spiritual antitype. And yet while we can affirm that the firstborn and firstfruits find their fulfillment in Christ and His Church as a portion or people that belong to the Lord, then why can’t we believe this with regards to the tithe? And even though we are told in the Bible that the offering of firstfruits spiritually speaks of Christ and His people, we still have those today who by quoting Proverbs 3:9, believe that we are still to offer up literal firstfruit offerings unto the Lord, even redefining for us what that is for us today. They have no authority whatsoever to do this. And some are even quoting this verse as being synonymous to the tithe, as if the tithe were the firstfruits and the firstfruits were the tithe. We have all probably heard someone say this at one time or another. They are gravely in error. But because Christians don’t bother to study these things out for themselves, they just parrot what others tell them; and these others that are telling them all of this are likewise parroting what their mentors have told them. And this vicious circle just keeps going round and round; and where it all lands, no one really knows! But let the record be set straight once and for all: the offerings of the firstfruits and the tithe were totally two separate and distinct offerings from one another, with neither to be confused with the other.

Now first and foremost in the minds of many who would insist that the NT believer is to tithe, is to insist that Abraham and Jacob tithed while not under the law, therefore God must have commanded them to tithe prior to the law. But as we will see later on in this outline, neither Abraham, nor Jacob, were “commanded” to tithe unto the Lord. For as we shall soon see, God did not carry over into the Mosaic law the concept of a tithe from the spoils of war; nor did He carry over any commandment of making a “vow” of the that which already belonged to the Lord, and the tithe was one of those things "under the law" that could not be vowed. In fact, the “spoils of war” were not commanded to be tithed from by God of the Jews under the Mosaic Law, but were commanded specifically by God to go entirely to the people, and not to God at all! The spoils of war were never for one moment tithed from (cf. Deut. 20), because the tithe under the law was completely of an agrarian nature. Under the Law nothing man-made could be tithed to the Lord.

So, again, if this “spoils of war” tithe by Abraham was "commanded" of him, then why wasn’t it continued under the Mosaic law in no uncertain terms, as was the burnt offering and circumcision? And with regards to "vowing" to tithe, in Lev. 27 we see that in this chapter devoted to “vows,” that at the end of this chapter three things are stated that could not be specifically “vowed.” They were (1) “the firstborn” (v. 26), (2) things already “devoted” (or “vowed,” v. 28), and (3) “the tithe” (v. 30). Any good commentary will attest to these facts. And I say all that to say this: Jacob could not have “vowed” what had already been “commanded” of the Lord for Abraham and others to do (if indeed it was commanded), and so this proves beyond all doubt that God did not command it of Jacob or of Abraham prior to the Law. In other words, if Jacob’s grandfather Abraham was commanded to tithe of the spoils of war, Jacob would not have “vowed” what had already been commanded of him to do. No conditions are to be placed on God’s commandments by us. And a “vow” by its very nature teaches us that it is in our own power to do with it whatever we want to do with it, prior to it being vowed to anyone. Often we think of the term “vow” as something we promise to do based upon what God has already said of us that we are to do. But this is not the biblical definition of a vow. A vow is something that is done not based upon a command, or in support of a previous commandment, but is an action done entirely independent of any previous commandment at all. It is a free-will, voluntary action that is not motivated by any previous law at all. It is not the promise to keep a law, but a voluntary action that is done irrespective of any law.

And finally, the argument that Jesus upheld the law of the tithe in the gospels is no argument at all. Prior to the cross Jesus reinforced and upheld all the laws as prescribed by Moses, even telling His disciples to do so (Mt. 23:2). He would have been “against the law” if He had authorized anything less. As a Jew, and under the law, Christ came to fulfill the law. He had to in order to fulfill all of its demands perfectly and in order to be the perfect and blameless sacrifice for our sins. But all these rules and regulations (and especially the ceremonies) changed for us when the law was “cancelled” at the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:12).

So, before we venture into this subject with regards to the tithe prior to the Law of Moses, and even while being administered under the Law of Moses, let us first consider the exposition of Malachi and get this out of the way first before going any further, since this is the book so often quoted in support of the tithe. Originally I wrote this in outline form for myself and I will leave it intact as such, explaining it along the way as I deem necessary. But for the most part, the outline just speaks for itself. Eventually, the outline will break off from talking about Malachi, and go into more detail on the tithe with regards to prior to entering the promised land, with regards to Abraham and Jacob, with regards to the law of Moses, and with regards to us in the New Testament; so this outline will include these latter ideas as well in the body of the outline, as you will soon discover.

When we read the book of Malachi as a whole, we will get a better understanding and picture of what and to whom God is exactly referring to. The book of Malachi is not written to Christians, per se, but is primarily and foremost written to Jews under the Mosaic law: “Remember the law of My servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel” (Mal. 4:4). The prophet Malachi has spiritual instruction for the Christian, when used lawfully, but it’s primary instruction and purpose, as seen in the verse just quoted above, is only for the Jews under the law of Moses with all of its attending “curses” and “blessing” for disobedience and obedience. We must pay careful attention to this, and pay attention to it well; these curses and blessings are for Israel and for Israel alone who were under the law of Moses. This is very important for us to realize here. These legalisms with all of their attending blessings and curses do not pertain to us, but to those under the Law of Moses. And even more specifically, it is written primarily to the priests, as well as to Judah and those living in the immediate vicinity around Jerusalem (see 1:1, 6; 2:1, 4, 7, 11, 13; 3:3, 6). Contrary to popular opinion, it is not just a letter to the priests as some suppose. Though primarily written to the priests, it is also written to Judah and the surrounding region of Jerusalem.

The northern tribes had been taken captive and dispersed by the Assyrians; whereas the southern tribes of Judah and Ephraim after also having been taken captive and dispersed by the Babylonians, are now returned to their homeland after their 70 year captivity under the Babylonians; and most likely it is thought that they were living during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. I have the tendency to believe that this was so. Clearly, the problems in the book of Malachi were reminiscent of the problems that were under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Serious abuses had crept into Jewish life. The priests had become lax and degenerate; defective sacrifices were allowed to be offered upon the brazen altar while they kept back the better ones for themselves (1:6-14); divorce was rampant and they were marrying the daughters of foreign gods (2:10-16); God’s justice and righteousness was being questioned with regards to those evil nations whom God allowed to remain for reasons known only to Himself (2:17; 3:13-15); and the Lord’s tithe was being neglected to be meted out to those for whom it was prescribed, which included, but was not limited to: the laborers worthy of their wages; as well as the widows, the fatherless, and the strangers (3:5). Again, these were the exact same conditions which prevailed under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. So Ezra and Nehemiah were most likely bringing reforms based not only on the words in the law of Moses, but also most likely under the rebuke and exhortations of God’s prophets, which included no less these words from Malachi to them.

Outline of Malachi (NIV):

I. Rebukes strictly against the Priests, Judah, and all of Jerusalem (not against us):

“It is you, O priests, who show contempt for My name [1:6]….And now this admonition is for you, O priests. If you do not listen, and you do not set your heart to honor My name, says the Lord Almighty, ‘I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them [2:1-2]….And you [the priests] will know that I have sent you this admonition so that My covenant with Levi may continue.’ ” (2:4).

Note: This covenant with Levi, with all of its attending provisions and sacrifices, was discontinued and changed under our New Covenant (Heb. 7:11-19). All NT believers are now considered as the Levitical priesthood, for which the OT priesthood was only but a type.

“….For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction [from My laws] you have violated the covenant with Levi…[you] have shown partiality in matters of the law [2:7-9]….“He [God] will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver” (3:3).

“….So I will come near to you for judgment” (3:5). The “you” invariably seems to now include the priests, Judah, and all of Jerusalem, (2:11-12, 13, 17; 3:1, 3-4).

“….I will be quick to testify against sorcerers[3], adulterers[4] and perjurers[5], against those who defraud laborers [the Levites] of their wages, who oppress the widows, and the fatherless, and deprive the aliens” (3:5). Clearly, again, this has to do with Israel under the law of Moses.

Note: Those for whom the tithe was also to go to beside the Levites, please read Deut. 14:29; 26:12-13. The priests were defrauding certain Levites of their wages, and in Nehemiah they were returning to their fields in order to eat. These priests were also defrauding "the widow, the fatherless, and the strangers" who were also to be allowed to partake of the tithe. This is also important for us to realize in consideration of whether there were separate tithes for "the fatherless, the widows and the strangers." I am convinced by this passage in Malachi, and the one in Amos 4:4, that there was one tithe collected each year (Deut. 14:22), but offered to the Lord every third year (Deut. 14:28; 26:12). It was also eaten by those who actually gave it, as well as by all those described above. I will later give a chart that shows the progression of this doctrine as it is revealed and taught throughout the Law of Moses in piecemeal form, as all the doctrines in the Law of Moses (and even in the entire Bible) are presented to us as such. And we have to put all of these bits and pieces together to form the whole jigsaw puzzle. The entire testimony of the tithe as a whole, when pieced all together, teaches us that there was only one tithe, not two or three as some claim.

Again, God through Malachi says to Israel under the law: “.…O descendants of Jacob…Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from My decrees [the laws of Moses] and have not kept them. Return to Me [to My decrees]…But you ask, ‘How are we to return [to your decrees]?’….In tithes and offerings. You [all of you] are under a curse—[even] the whole nation of you—because you [all of you] are robbing Me. Bring the whole tithe [all of it] into the storehouse [6] [as commanded in the law of Moses]. Test Me in this…and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven [a Hebrew idiom for “rain”[7]] and pour out….blessing that you will not have room for it [enough room to store it all as in Hezekiah’s day, 2Chr. 31: 6-12]. I will prevent the pests[8] from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit[9]….Then all the nations [around Israel] will call you blessed” (3:6-12).

A. As we can very well see, this is a rebuke against the priests and all of Judah in Jerusalem for whom this law of the tithe applied (note again the reference to the Mosaic Law given at Horeb/Sinai in Mal. 4:4, as well as in Lev. 27:30. Again, these instructions with regards to obeying the law of the tithe are written to those who were under the law of Moses, not to us).

B. The “whole” tithe, i.e., with no portion of it being kept back, was to go to:

1. the “laborers worthy of their wages,” in i.e. the Levites, which included:
2. the Aaronic priesthood (along with those who worked with them directly at the temple, Num. 18;26; 2Chr. 31:16; Neh. 13:5, 10) and;
3. the widows, the fatherless, and the aliens who hadn’t labored as such (see Deut. 14 and 26), and even;
4. the givers of the tithe were allowed to partake of the tithe on the day that they brought it before the Lord (Deut. 12, 14, and 26). [10],

Note: As seems clear, this rebuke, especially with regards to the tithe, is against all of the people (not just the priests) for hoarding the tithe unto themselves. The problem was that the tithe was not only being brought to the Levites by the people, as Nehemiah makes clear, but that the “whole” tithe was not being distributed to everyone that it was to be distributed to. Portions to the Levites, as well as those who most likely worked alongside the priests who were to be included as “the laborers worthy of their wages,” and even the, “the widows, the fatherless and the strangers,” were all being oppressed and deprived of this tithe.

II. Notice also here in Malachi and elsewhere in the Law, that the tithe was to be AGRARIAN: “from your grain, fruit trees, and livestock” (Lev. 27:30-32). Similarly, in Malachi, the Lord promised to multiply their agriculture for the faithful tithing and distribution of it. Hoarding for oneself was not permitted. God would send rain, prevent pests from devouring their crops, and give them fruitful vines for faithful obedience. Because they were not properly distributing this agrarian tithe as God had given orders to do so, He in turn caused their agriculture to be destroyed in one way or another.

A. Money was not allowed to be offered: As noted a little earlier, if the place to take the tithe was too far to travel with the tithe, then it could be exchanged for silver, and the silver in turn exchanged again for agricultural goods to be offered to the Lord once they arrived at the designated place to leave the tithe (see Deut. 14:24-26).

B. Not all were required to tithe: The tithe was given to the alien, the fatherless, and the widows (Deut. 14:28-29). These individuals were not required to tithe. Also, no such commandment to tithe was imposed upon those with occupations other than agricultural. Those earning their livelihood through their own skills did not tithe. Most likely, because, they could have claimed that their own works produced God’s blessing. And, obviously, the poor who had no lands or livestock (or less than 10 animals), and who ate leftovers from the corners of the fields, were not required to tithe—they partook of it.

Another reason I believe that the Lord did not allow anything else to be tithed from, other than from agriculture, is because the tithe spiritually speaks of us who belong to God as His portion, allotment and inheritance from His creation. To give to the Lord what we have created would denote something that is the creation or work of our hands, and not what He has created. Agriculture in Scripture is often used as a type of God's people who belong to Him. We see this in the firstfruits, and we even see this in the many stories and illustrations where Jesus speaks of us as being His harvest from all the world. The tithe, along with the firstfruits, is just another figurative illustration of God setting aside a "portion" (or a remnant) for Himself.

C. Spoils of war were not incorporated into the tithe: In Numbers 31, a one-time portion (not 10%) of every thing that had breath in it (except men, children, and women who who had slept with a man) was to be taken from the spoils of the Midianites for the Priests and Levites. A total of 2% (1 in 50) from the Israelites was given to the Levites, and two-tenths of 1% (1 in 500) from the soldiers was given to the Priests. None of the other plunder was required to be given. But the commanders voluntarily gave as a “gift” all of their gold to the Lord, whereas the soldiers did not. More will be said on “plunder” later under the tithe of Abraham.

D. Tithe to be offered every third year (see Deut. 14:28; 26:12; Amos 4:4-5). Contrary to popular opinion, the tithe was not presented each week, month, or year, but EVERY THIRD YEAR. This was the year of the tithe. God’s Word says so!

E. Summary: If we are going to mandate this law upon N.T. believers, then we must strictly observe the requirements of this law according to the letter of the Law. We do not decide when we tithe, from what we tithe, from whom the tithe is to be received, or to whom it is to go. The Mosaic laws given to Moses on Mt. Sinai regulating the observance of this tithe clearly spells it all out for us. We don’t pick and choose how we are to observe it. Where did such an idea like this ever come from? To be honest, many in the church have made up their own laws regarding this tithe. Such teachings are not based on a careful exegesis of the Scriptures. Even the "spoils of war" that Abraham tithed from were not commanded to be tithed from under the Mosaic Law. Should we impose stricter laws upon the N.T. believer that not even the Jews were allowed to do? Should we impose a greater burden upon the Church than that which was imposed upon Israel under the law? When we demand one part of the law to be kept, then we are instructed by the Apostle’s that we are under obligation to keep the whole law. And if we place ourselves under the law we are also under the “curses“ of the law (Gal. 3:10; 5:3; Jer. 11:3).

The Israelites did not tithe from monetary inheritances, gifts, spoils of war, or from occupations that were non-agricultural. In fact, they weren’t even allowed to give money at all as a tithe. It was strictly forbidden. Furthermore, the aliens, fatherless, and widows were also to be allowed to partake of the tithe—as well as the one’s who gave the tithe. If this was all meant for us to observe, then we are a long way off from correctly teaching how the N.T. believer is to tithe. Many who are exhorted to tithe today in the Church in the manner in which they are told to do, were not even commanded to do so under the Mosaic Law. So what should that tell us about what the church today is teaching and practicing? The church has imposed a burden upon the saints today that is greater than what was required under the Law of Moses. Even Jesus had said of the Pharisees: “…you [so called] experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry…” (Lk. 11:46a). “Burdens,” which are truly, “…rules taught by men. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men” (Mk. 7:7-8). The Jews were guilty of this in Christ's day, and many in the Church are just as "guilty" of the same reckless abuses. Now you can understand my (or I should say, God's) harsh rebuke above of "Shepherds" in Ezekiel 34 who only look out for themselves, and not after the flock of God, "plundering" God's people. Jesus' scathing rebuke is just one prime example of this where people are recklessly creating their own commandments and adding to or subtracting from God's Word to suit only their own needs, and not the needs of others.

III. Did Israel pay tithes before entering the promised land? Israel was not to tithe until they entered the promised land 40 years later (Deut. 12:8-11). This is very important for us to realize.

A. This presupposes the fact that they didn’t have a commandment to tithe before that time. They surely didn’t tithe from the quail or manna that God freely provided. And usually when they did give, they gave freely from the heart.

IV. The Mosaic covenant—not our covenant.

A. As we should all very well know by now, the law of the tithe was written to those under the Mosaic covenant. Laws that are now abolished.

B. We are not obligated to keep this law. The law of the tithe, along with all of the other “gifts and offerings” served as a “copy and shadow of the heavenly” (Heb. 8:3-5). This is "key" to understanding that the tithe was likewise something that typified something that was to be eventually understood spiritually with regards to Christ and His Church.

C. The terminology of the tithe (or 10%), typically speaking, is used to refer to a remnant of people that the Lord saves. We see indications of this in Isaiah 6:13 and Neh. 11:1. We also see it used in a negative way with regards to the heathen in Amos 5:3 whom God graciously spares from destruction. But with reference to God’s people, they are a remnant of people that He preserves or sets aside unto Himself. Paul says in Romans, “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom…like Gomorrah.” Again, the Lord says, “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” And elsewhere He says, “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand…” And again, “so too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” (9:27, 29; 11:4-5)

1. Under the Mosaic Law, the earliest instance of “a tenth” of anything being set aside unto the Lord is in Ex.16:36. Here an “omer” (1/10th, or ten percent of an ephah) of manna is to be placed in a jar (a clay pot) before the ark of the testimony. Why one tenth? And is there any significance to an earthen, clay vessel here? We know that the “manna” speaks of the body of Christ. He is the bread of life. And we know that by being placed into Christ we are also called His body. So, could this be the first instance where God is revealing to us a remnant that was to be placed in Christ and belong entirely to Him? We also know that Paul said, “We have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2Cor. 4:7). Could the one tenth be indicative of the remnant chosen by God, with Christ being in us (the manna), and us in Christ (the ten percent)? This jar of manna is also said to be placed not in the ark, but seated “in front” of the ark, and it is interesting how that the Church is said to be seated with Christ in heavenly places, being even heirs and joint-heirs together with Him. The proximity of a clay pot with a tenth of manna in it in relation to the ark or the throne of God is significant. And clearly Christ isn’t the “tenth” being represented here, but can only be understood as "the remnant" or "portion" chosen by God that is to be “in Christ” and which belong strictly to Him.
2. As said before, we can clearly see this concept alluded to with regards to us in Isaiah 6:13 and Amos 5:3. In Isaiah 6:13, we see this use of the idea of 10% alluded to with regards to people who are graciously spared from destruction. Isaiah even likens them unto a stump of a tree that is left after being cut down (v. 14). And even in Ezekiel 9, we see Ezekiel receiving a vision from God sparing a remnant of true worshippers of God as opposed to the false worshippers, marking them with a mark upon their foreheads; revealing once again that “unless the Lord had left us descendants, would have all been like Sodom and like Gomorrah.” Again, a remnant marked out by the Lord is saved according to His own choice and grace.
3. The phrase in Lev. 27:32 “every 10th animal that passes under the shepherds rod—will be holy to the Lord” is a phrase that is used twice for the ceremonial tithe (see its second occurrence in Jer. 33:13). It only occurs once more after this in Ezekiel to denote people, or a remnant who belong to the Lord (Ezk. 20:37). Again, as with some of the other verses noted above, we can clearly see that the terminology God used for ceremonial purposes, He begins using it to allude to people. We will in a little bit see that He even starts to do this with the concept of the “firstborn” in Ex. 4:22, and “firstfruits” in Jer. 2:3. Indeed, all of this surely tells us what this ceremony of the tithe pointed to: A remnant, or portion, from out of all the peoples of the earth that belong strictly to the Lord---as even Deut. 32:9 declares, “For the Lord’s portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.” There can be no doubt that this is alluding to what God called a "portion" which was said to be "allotted" to the Levites and unto the Lord, as “the tithe.”
4. Consider also Isa. 66:20 and Rom. 15:16. These passages clearly confirm that we as a people are considered also as offerings unto the Lord that His people bring unto Him. What O.T. offerings could possibly be typical of us? Most likely all those offerings that did not expiate sin, such as the tithe, the waving of the sheaves on the day of Pentecost, the sheaf of the first-fruits, the grain offerings, and even the firstborn were not only typical of Christ in some manner, but also typical of all of us who are in Christ.
5. As was said earlier in the introduction, all of the O.T. sacrifices and offerings were typical of something spiritual in the N.T. We can see all of this more so as we begin to consider the idea that Christ’s church is also called “the firstfruits” and “the firstborn-ones” in the NT. And the concept of a people chosen out of all the nations of the earth as the Lord’s “firstfruits” and “firstborn” is first typically used of Israel in Jer. 2:3. and Ex. 4:22. Clearly natural Israel as a nation were a type or shadow of how God would choose His spiritual seed whom He similarly would call His “firstborn ones”[11] (Heb. 12:23) and the “firstfruits of all of His creation” in Jam. 1:18.[12] But the study of types is not what this article is all about, although it does help us to realize that God had more in mind than just natural, carnal ceremonies when it comes to His Church. All of this contributes to the idea that the tithe is not something that is to be literally done anymore by us, but has a spiritual significance and import for us today. And to understand more about all of that, I would also highly recommend that you read my article entitled: The Typology of the Tithe, Firstfruits and Firstborn.

Click here for part two.



Footnotes:

[1] Paul said we died to the law as our former husband and schoolmaster in the person and work of Christ, being married to another husband whom Paul also refers to as Christ (Rom. 7:1-4). It makes no sense whatsoever to say that we have "died to" our "former" husband, the Law, with respect to only our justification before God is concerned, but are still under the servitude of this former husband as far as our sanctification is concerned. This is absolute nonsense and a contradiction of terms. As said before, it is nothing more than doubletalk. Many interpreters of the Bible today want to read the expression “the law of Christ” in Gal. 6:2, as a direct reference to “the law of Moses.” But this is a false notion. In 1Cor. 9:20-21, Paul refutes such an idea. Not only does Paul say that he is no longer under the laws of the Jews and of Moses as a code of conduct (remember his words also in Rom. 7:1-4), but also clearly differentiates between the law of Moses verses the law of Christ,

To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to men under the Law (of Moses), [I became] as one under the Law (of Moses), though not myself being under the Law (of Moses), that I might win those under the Law (of Moses). To those without (outside) law (of Moses) I became as one without law (of Moses), not that I am without the law of God and lawless toward Him, but that I am [especially keeping] within and committed to the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law (of Moses). (AMP; parenthesis mine, brackets theirs).

I kind of like how God’s Word Translation reads,

I became Jewish for Jewish people. I became subject to Moses’ Teachings for those who are subject to those laws. I did this to win them even though I’m not subject to Moses’ Teachings. I became like a person who does not have Moses’ Teachings for those who don’t have those teachings. I did this to win them even though I have God’s teachings. I'm really subject to Christ’s teachings.

Clearly, we are no longer under the rule and reign of Moses, but under the rule and reign of grace and of Christ; and we are to “hear Him,” not Moses. If the Christian is equally obligated to the law of Moses as their husband and also to the law of Christ as their husband, then such a one would be committing spiritual adultery. And in a round-about-way, such a person is no less a “transgressor” than the one whom Paul describes for us in Gal. 2:18-19. Here, in Galatians, the sin of Peter was “hypocrisy”; whereas, above, the sin is spiritual “adultery” before Christ.

And for all those who would argue that we shouldn’t take the analogy described above of “death” in Romans 7 too far in all of this, who are they kidding? A real death to the Law as our former husband has occurred. Paul says we died to the Law which was nothing more than a taskmaster to us. This is why the apostles could say to the believing Gentiles, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements. You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well if you avoid these things” (Acts 15:28-29). They could have very well have said like so many do today, “Keep the ten commandments, and you will do well.” But they didn’t. It is because we are not under the ten commandments, as such, of that former husband. As went one, so went them all. Today, we are commanded to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. And the Christian who is born of God will not continue in sin, but will from the heart begin to love both God and his fellow man.

And they are all no less wrong, who say, “Moses sends us to Christ for our justification, but Christ sends us back to Moses for our sanctification.” You know who said this? The Puritan reformers! They were right about being pure and holy in God’s sight, but they were wrong as to how we all get there and are sanctified. The Law sanctifies no one, but being a branch in the Vine of Christ does the job very well, thank you very much! If we are in Christ, the life-giving sap of the Holy Spirit in the Vine will give us life and sanctify us. It is through “the law of the Spirit” of life in Christ Jesus! God said through His prophets that He would by His Spirit write His laws in our hearts and put the fear of Himself in us. From start to finish it is all the Spirit’s doing and work through and through. All we have to do is simply abide in the Vine. Under the law of Moses "sin reigned unto death" (cp. Rom. 7:8), but under the law of Christ, "grace reigns through the righteousness" in Christ to bring eternal life and even our sanctification (Rom. 5:20, 21; 6:23). God’s grace to us to do what we formerly could not do is being under the reign of supply, not under a dictatorial reign of demand. Christ is not a demanding husband, like the Law, but a giving husband. Praise God! “He which began the work,” Paul says, “will carry it on to completion!” (Php. 1:6). Can I hear an Amen!

If we are going to be sanctified, it is not to be by reading a four hundred page book on how to keep the ten commandments! And believe me, I have read dozens of them. No, it comes by abiding and trusting or by having faith in Christ alone! What began by faith alone (sola fide), ends by “sola fide.” It comes not by outward observation but by an inward change and revelation of who we now are in Christ in a practical manner, not just in a positional manner. And “sin shall not be our master, because we are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law [of Moses] of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:2, NASB; brackets mine). Paul just said that by being under the Law, sin remains our Master. Being strictly under the law of Moses produces only sin and death; whereas, being under the law of Christ produces only life and righteousness. And this is how we know that we have passed from death (being under the law of Moses) and unto life (under the law of Christ), because we love. Every person without exception who has the love of God in his heart will, with reason, earnestly desire to obey everything that the Law of God had set forth as a "duty" for us to do! Or, to state the same thing in a different wasy, a biblically based love will never lead any person to disobey God’s laws as mandated for the New Testament believer under our New Covenant with God and with Christ. Just as sin always transgresses the law, so does God’s love within us always desire to fulfill the law. Wherever one finds the love of God in operation, they are certain to find God’s moral laws being fulfilled. It’s just a given. Those born of God do not contin88ue in sin. Outward “laws” or "commandments" do not do this for us, the Holy Spirit within us does this for us.

I remember when I first got saved in an I.C.U. unit, and how the Devil immediately put a nurse working there before me who immediately took a liking to me, and I to her. No sooner had I started to date her and start to become intimately involved with her, when the Holy Spirit within me began to prompt me to leave that relationship. I knew of no such “commandment” that prompted me to do so. I just knew that God had gotten a hold of my life and my heart and was beginning to convict me of sin. Like John said, those who are truly born of God no longer continue in sin. If you don’t believe that, then just tell that to all those saints before the laws at Mt. Sinai were ever given. By the power of the Holy Spirit their consciences were accusing them, rather than excusing them as those who were not being led by God's Spirit. Enoch, and all those like him, were being led by the Spirit and "walked with God"; not by observing outward written commandments, but by serving God from the heart. Praise God for His life-giving and life-changing Spirit!

Again, how can the Law of Moses exert any influence over us whatsoever, and how can we any longer be in servitude to it, if we are “dead” in relation to it? Those who would argue otherwise (many reformed brethren) are no different than those among us (Arminians) who would say that we are not completely dead in sins and trespasses before responding in faith towards Christ. Honestly, it is no different. Those of you who tell others that they were completely dead and unable to respond to the call of the gospel, unless God imparted faith to them to believe, need to listen to yourselves when Paul likewise says we are dead to the law! In Christ we are just as much dead to the Law of Moses, as we were dead to the things of God and to Christ before being saved. Any relation whatsoever to the Law of Moses is severed by our being dead to it in the person and work of Christ. And it is in this manner that Paul says in Romans 7 that the Law as our former husband has no more authority or influence over or lives anymore. Do you see that!? There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The Law of Moses is only imposed upon us by those who are really ignorant of what all this means for us, and who also want to appear religious and pious and have something they can boast about in their flesh; and to keep all unsuspecting Christians back under a yoke of servitude and slavery to legalisms. This is what false religions produce; not worshippers from the heart, but legalists who walk by rules and regulations commanding them to touch not and taste not, and who are not led by the Spirit of grace at all. And such people are not happy until they bring someone under the servitude of some law. Being brought under the law of the tithe is no different. For many, if they can say that they gave ten percent to God, and no more or no less, then they can feel like they gave to God what rightfully (or better, "legally") belongs to Him. And the rest is now "freely" in our own hands to give and to do with as we "freely" please. But such a motivation is only out of legalisms, not out of love. And to think any differently with regards to all of this is to be labeled as “antinomian” by those who really do not know what they are talking about, or whereof they affirm. But to be called by such individuals that we are against what God’s righteous law demands of us if we believe like we this, is a misnomer. We obey inwardly what they try to impose upon us outwardly. Neither side is "antinomian." One is just operating by a set of laws, legalisms and legalities; the other by the Spirit of grace. But the law is okay to use, only if one uses it lawfully. And, sadly, many are not using it "lawfully"; many are not rightly dividing the Word of truth.

John MacArthur notes here concerning the operation of grace in our lives,

Grace is not a dormant or abstract quality, but a dynamic, active, working principle: “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation…and instructing us” (Titus 2:11-12). It is not some kind of ethereal blessing that lies idle until we appropriate it. Grace is God’s sovereign initiative to sinners (Ephesians 1:5-6).

Paul frequently contrasted grace with law (Romans 4:16; 5:20; 6:14-15; Galatians 2:21; 5:4). He was careful to state, however, that grace does not nullify the moral demands of God’s law. Rather, it fulfills the righteousness of the law (Romans 6:14-15). It does not annul the righteous demands of the law; it confirms and validates them (Romans 3:31).

Grace has its own law, a higher, liberating law: “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2; cf. James 1:25). Note that this new law emancipates us from sin as well as death. Paul was explicit about this: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1-2). Grace reigns through righteousness (Romans 5:21). (What is Grace? http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/what-is-grace-10339.html).

Again he writes,

If someone asks, “Is the law binding on me now that I’m a Christian,” the answer is yes, and no. It is not binding with regard to our right standing before God, but it is binding in that our new nature seeks to obey it. The law cannot save a man because he has no capacity to keep it, but now that God has saved us we have the power to keep it for the first time in our lives. We can cry out with the psalmist who said, “Oh, how I love thy law!” (Ps. 119:97). (Dead to the Law, http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg45-50.htm).

The problem with all the legalists today, and similar to the Jews, is that they want you to still keep the outward, physical observance of the Sabbath, the tithe, or what-have-you, as a law-code of demands given to Israel and which were binding upon them as their former husband. But under our new husband Christ, that law has been dramatically changed for us in more ways than one; with many things no longer to be practiced outwardly, but realized inwardly and in the person and work of Christ. Like the Jew, the legalists in the Church today still want you to be under the same laws; whereas the truth of the matter is, we are now under the Law of Christ. This is the difference that we are talking about here. And it is vitally important that we realize this. The legalists just don’t get this! But the new man who is truly set free from all such legalisms, gets it completely. One operates by faith, the other by commandments—and lot’s of them!

The fact that the Christian community and the world around us is not bound by the ten commandments is not to imply that man is free to practice idolatry, steal, murder, etc. Just the opposite is true. Even Paul said of the unbeliever, “All who sin apart from the law [of Moses] will also perish apart from the law…” (Rom. 2:12). Similarly, being not under law of Moses but under the law and rule of grace does not give us a license to sin. Yet this is the argument and conclusion that the legalist comes to who doesn’t fully comprehend the work of grace, i.e., that grace actually does something in us. Grace (and faith) works something in us that is life-changing. Paul called it “the reign” of grace (Rom. 5:21) as opposed “the reign” of sin. Grace rules over the believers spirit and life to perform that which God began in us to do. God does all of the work in and through us, not by way of commandments, but by way of His regenerating and life-giving Holy Spirit. This “Holy” Spirit makes us “holy.” So in the case of the NT believer, the law of Christ (cf. Isa. 2:3; Jer. 31:33; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; 2 Pet. 2:21) has both religious and moral restrictions that circumscribe our fleshly, human conduct. For the unbeliever, their own consciences show the work of the law written in their hearts so that, according to Paul, they are without excuse.

Consider also this fact: Does anyone who migrates from England to New York imagine that he is free to commit murder simply because he has become a citizen of the United States and is no longer subject to the “crown” of England? One law may supercede another, or, in principle, overlap them in many of the same practices and ideas. And in a similar manner, this is how it is to be understood concerning the law of Moses verses the law of Christ. Jesus has said, “every scribe which is instructed to the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure things new and old” (Mat. 13:52, AKJV). Similarly in Christ’s kingdom some things under the law of Moses have been assimilated, redefined and fitted to the new wine skin of the new man in Christ. Others (such as literal temples, sacrifices, and ceremonies, etc.) have been abandoned altogether, no longer fit for use. But just as we are no longer under the law of England when we come under the law of the United States, so too we are now no longer under the law of Moses but under the law of Christ.

Someone who once studied how many commandments there are for us in the NT, counted well over 300 of them. Add this to the 615 or so commandments of the OT and we have well over 900 commandments to keep one very busy. If someone wants to start keeping commandments, I suggest that they start with attempting to keep the 300 or so in the NT first, before they attempt to obey the other 615 under our former husband. We have plenty to obey God for under our new covenant with Christ, without having to return to being back under the servitude of the old covenants by-laws of that master and husband.

No one doubts that nine of the ten commandments are reiterated for us in some way, shape, manner or form under our new covenant with Christ (and even the 4th commandment of "rest" is also spiritually now realized in our "rest" in Christ). But never are these commandments reiterated in the form and spirit of legalisms as a strict law-code of ethics, but in a Spirit of love. And when we love, we don’t want to sin against God and we don’t want to defraud our neighbor, and we go beyond what the law just requires a person to do. We fulfill everything that is morally right for us to do through God’s life-giving Spirit and through love. It is not a matter of do’s and don’ts for us, but of wants; wanting to do from the heart what we could not formerly do without God's Spirit. And as Paul said, “against such, there is no law.” And again, “the law is not made for a righteous man” (1Tim. 1:9, KJV). We are not motivated to walk by an outward set of law-codes for our ethics, but by a life-giving power that now resides within us. By the higher law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, we as Christians fulfill the righteous requirements of the law; not by an overbearing taskmaster’s iron rod that rules over us, but by the Shepherd’s staff that now gently leads us.
[2] What is Grace? http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/what-is-grace-10339.html.
[3] See chap. 2:10-12. “A sin into which the Jews were led in connection with their foreign idolatrous wives” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, p. 722). See also Acts 8:9; 13:6; Gal. 5:20.
[4] See chap. 2:14-16.
[5] Those who swear to a falsehood. Most likely to those who in the immediate context were not “keeping faith” to their original marriage vows and thus committing adultery. But it could be any of those things that Malachi addressed of which the Israelites had said they would do for the Lord, but were not doing.
[6] The storehouse was the designated towns where the Levites dwelt (Deut. 14:28; Neh. 10:37), as well as the storehouse located at the temple for the priests who worked at the temple (Neh. 10:37).
[7] Refer to Gen. 7:11 and 2Kings 7:2, 19: These are the only other places in the Old Testament where this phrase is used. In 1Ki. 8:35, 36b and 2Chr. 7:13, the heavens are “shut up” so that no rain would come. Literal blessings of rain is what is clearly meant in all these passages. Malachi and others in the OT are not referring to “spiritual’ blessings, which is an eisegesis of the text and not an exegesis, but literal rain upon their crops and upon the earth. If Israel keeps the law of the tithe God will give them rain instead of drought and pestilence (see also Deut. 28:12 for this blessing, and vv. 23-24 for the opposite curse, and again 11:17). What is being taught today over the pulpits that a lack or famine of the Word of God is in the churches because believers today don’t tithe is unscriptural and unfounded. The “blessing” was fruitful crops and vines, the curse was just the opposite. And these curses and blessings pertained only to Israel under the law of the tithe under the law of Moses. Any other interpretation is using these verses “unlawfully” and only for one’s own selfish means and ambitions. Such individuals are hirelings and the ministers of sin and transgressors of God’s new covenant, rebuilding and evoking from the people what God has both changed and destroyed (see Gal. 2:18).
[8] See Deut. 28:38-39, 42 to see who or what these devourers are. They are literal locusts and worms, not the Devil. See also Amos 4:9; 2Chr. 7:13-14; Psm. 105:34-35.
[9] All from which the tithe comes, Deut. 12:17; 14:22-23.
[10] Some suppose that these were all separate and distinct tithes. In other words, at least two or three tithes. Still others, see only one tithe. No one is in agreement. The argument for “three” dates back to the historical records of Josephus (Tob. 1:7, 8), and of “two” to the writings of the Jewish Rabbi Miamonides in the 12th century. But Jewish interpretations of the Law are often unreliable and often given over to the commandments and interpretations of men, rather than of God. Even these two Jewish authorities just quoted can’t agree. The idea of three is thought to be born out of greed and not from a correct interpretation of the Word of God. I, as well as many others, see these verses in Scripture as all referring to one and the same tithe, enjoyed by all of those recipients mentioned earlier. As with any doctrine in the Bible, we have to piecemeal from all the Scriptures the entire revelation of God. When all the data on the tithe is collected and read we see that the Scriptures are referring to one tithe, not three. See my table below on this progressive revelation in the Scriptures of, “The Levitical Law of the Tithe: Not Three Tithes, But One.”
[11] The Greek form of this word is in the plural, and literally reads: “the firstborns” or “the firstborn-ones.” And this is to be understood no differently than when God called the nation of Israel His “firstborn” as a type of those whom He would spiritually call His “Church of the firstborn-ones.”
[12] At first glance, in Ja. 1:1, it would seem that his letter is to the natural twelve tribes of Israel scattered among the nations, or at least maybe Jews who are saved out of those twelve tribes. But this would seem odd to me that this would be the only epistle addressed only to saved Jews. The writers of the NT never address their letters to just Jewish Christians, per se, but to all saints in general (though Paul did address the non-saved twelve tribes of natural Israel as such in Acts 26:7). Elsewhere, in 1Pet. 1:1, Peter seems to address the same people, who are similarly said to be “strangers in the world, scattered throughout” as “God’s elect” and “who have been chosen” (v. 2). But he also refers to them as “living stones, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices…a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (2:4-9). Clearly, he has the church of God in mind. Similarly, in James epistle, in chapter two, verse one, he clearly refers to his readers as “believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” and in 5:14 says, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the Elders of the Church to pray over him.” So clearly they are Christian believers and not just Jews. Elsewhere, Paul calls the church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, “Israel” (Gal. 6:16). And the New Jerusalem in Revelation, John calls the Church, or the Lamb’s bride (21:9; Eph. 5:25-32; Heb. 12:22; Gal. 4:26), and is comprised of 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostle’s, and with 12 gates, north, south, east and west with the names of the 12 tribes on them. And this city is all adorned with the 12 stones from the High Priest’s ephod, also representing the 12 tribes of Israel. If this city is the bride of Christ made up of both Jews and Gentiles, then where are the Gentiles in this city who are no less said to be the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-32)? They are, through Christ, assimilated into this group (see also Ezk. 47:21-23 NIV) and surnamed “Israel” (see Isa. 44:5 in the KJV). Joel says on that day (our day) that “no foreigners will invade her” (Joel 3:17). Zechariah likewise affirms in this day, “no longer will a Canaanite be found there” (Zech. 14:21). And the Lord similarly states of this heavenly city called Jerusalem and His bride that, “outside are dogs” (Rev. 22:15; those outside of the commonwealth of spiritual Israel). So it stands to reason if “Israel” is to be understood now in a “spiritual” sense, then so are the 12 tribes that make up this spiritual city who are also no less called “Israel.” The “twelve tribes,” typically speaking, speak of God’s chosen people “from all the tribes of the earth” north, south, east and west. It is to be noticed here that these twelve tribes were strategically positioned north, south, east and west around the tabernacle of Moses, typifying God’s chosen people from around the globe who are gathered in and around the temple of the Lord. Lke. 13:29 says, “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.” Natural Israel held their three annual “Feasts” before the doors of the tabernacle, and this is now, clearly, in Luke, spiritually applied to all of God’s chosen people. Paul also said, “If you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed [his people or offspring], and heirs according to the promise….No longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people” (Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:19). There is no longer any distinction, we are all “Israelites” indeed. We all comprise “the twelve tribes.” Could the 144,000 be the twelve tribes times the twelve apostle’s equaling 144, multiplied by God's "love to a thousand generations”? His remnant, or “firstfruits,” out of all creation?

The Lord's Portion: the Tithe (2 of 2)

V. Abraham’s Tithe: a freewill gift and tribute to the Lord.

A. In ancient antiquity it was common practice to give 10% after wars to deities or kings. Abraham was just following the local customs of the day. The remaining 90% Abraham gave back to the king of Sodom. It is also important to consider the fact here that Abraham did not tithe of his own possessions. Abraham gave 10% of the spoils of war of another’s belongings to God, and the remainder he gave back to the ungodly king of Sodom. Now let’s all match that one! Let’s all give to God what doesn’t belong to us, and then give the remainder back to the one to whom it all originally belonged!

Professor Sayce in his Patriarchal Religion, succinctly notes here:

This offering of tithes was no new thing. In his Babylonian home Abram must have been familiar with the practice. The cuneiform inscriptions of Babylonia contain frequent references to it. It went back to the pre-Semitic age of Chaldea, and the great temples of Babylonia were largely supported by the esra or tithe which was levied upon prince and peasant alike. That the god should receive a tenth of the good things which, it was believed, he had bestowed upon mankind was not considered to be asking too much. There are many tablets in the British Museum which are receipts for the payment of the tithe to the great temple of the sun-god at Sippara, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. From one of them we learn that Belshazzar, even at the very moment when the Babylonian empire was falling from his father's hands, nevertheless found an opportunity for paying the tithe due from his sister (p. 175).

B. Of all the things that Abraham did---circumcision, burnt offerings, and even giving a tenth---only circumcision was clearly "commanded" of him by God. Everything else he was free to do as he pleased from his heart. And yet all were later to become laws (except tithing from the spoils of war), and all such laws were later abolished and cancelled at the cross. As went one, so went them all. As said earlier, it has to be all or nothing. And even the fact that Abraham’s tithe from the spoils of war was forbidden under Mosaic Law should give one pause to think with great concern as to where it is that we get the idea that we should do what Israel did, let alone even what Abraham did which was not even allowed under Mosaic Law. Clearly, we have become a law unto ourselves to teach and practice anything otherwise. If you thought the scribes and Pharisees were the only ones who taught for the doctrines of God, the teachings and commandments of men, you’ve got another thing coming! It’s right before us at the very doorsteps as one first walks into a church!

C. Some More Thoughts on “Plunder,” or “Spoils of War”:

1. Contrary to popular opinion, "plunder" was never to be tithed from to the Lord under the Law of Moses. An entire chapter in Deuteronomy is devoted to plunder or “spoils of war,” and it was given entirely to the people as wages for going to war (Deut. 20; see also Ezk. 29:19). Only the cities that God gave them as an inheritance could they not plunder from (v. 16); and Jericho was one of those cities in Josh. 6:17. Otherwise, everything else was fair game for them to take for themselves. And it is significant to note here that they were not commanded to tithe from this. The laws concerning the tithe specified what was to be tithed from; it was the grain, new wine, oil, and livestock that the people cultivated and bred. Again, portions from the spoils of war were NOT commanded to be tithed from.
2. An exception to this law on the spoils of war is seen in an incident where in one of the towns that the Lord had given to Israel as an inheritance (where they started to follow after other gods), they were to slay all the people and livestock in that town, gather all the plunder, and burn it in the public square as a burnt offering to the Lord (Deut. 13:12-18).
3. Another exception to the laws on the spoils of war in Deut. 20, is in Num. 31. Here in Numbers 31 God required a portion (but not 10%) of the plunder of the Midianites to go to Eleazar the priest (1% from all of the soldier's plunder), and to the Levites (2% from the people’s plunder). The gold, silver and the rest of the booty God did not require of them to give. But the commanders of the soldiers freely gave a freewill offering of just the gold as a “gift” to the Lord for the success that the Lord had given to them in the battle, and for the Lord seeing to it that none of the men lost their lives in battles (v. 52).
4. In ISam. 30:26, David also gave as a “gift” some of the plunder to “elders” in various cities. But he did not tithe from this plunder or give any to the Lord, because as the Law noted in Deut. 20, it was the people’s to give and do with as they freely chose to do. I cannot stress the importance of this, that the tithe was NOT required to be given from the spoils of war! So where do we come off in saying to others that we must likewise do what Abraham did? God didn’t even require such a thing under the Mosaic Law.
5. In 1Chr. 26:27, the people freely took “some of the plunder taken in battle [and] they dedicated [it] for the repair of the temple of the Lord.”
6. Some other incidents where the plunder was entirely the possession of all the people, is in: Josh. 8:2; 11:14; 22:8; Deut. 2:35; 3:7.
7. In Esther 9:10, 14b, 16b they freely chose not to take the plunder that was rightfully theirs to take according to Deut. 20. Wow, now there’s an example of not having hearts of greed! All they cared about was their lives being spared, not possessions.

D. Now with regards to literal circumcision, Paul was unambiguously clear that literal circumcision is no longer binding upon the Christian, and to this no one would disagree. And notice also that even though it was instituted as a command before the Law, Paul includes it with the Law as having been abrogated at the cross (Rom. 2:25-27; Gal. 5:3; Eph. 2:15, 16; Col. 2:14- 16; Lev. 12:3). When the written code was canceled, this canceled (along with many other things) circumcision, the Levitical priesthood and the tithe which supported them as well. Even orthodox Jews today don't pay tithes to their Rabbis, because there are no longer any recognizable Levites as priests to tithe to. Even they understand that no Levites means no paying of tithes. And as the author of Hebrews declares of the former priesthood and the tithes which were associated with them: "The former regulation is set aside because it is weak and useless" (Heb. 7:8). And just earlier he had said with regards to these priests of Levi under the Law: "those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man [Melchizedek], who does not have his descent from them [or from Levi], received tithes [not by way of a commandment] from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises" (Heb. 7:5-6, ESV). The ellipses of the word "commandment" with regards to Melchizedek receiving a tithe, in contrast to the clear and poignant statement that the Levites "have a commandment in the law to take tithes," is striking. The author of Hebrews clearly states with no mincing of words that only the Levites were "commanded" by God to take tithes from the people. No one else received such a "commandment"; and this includes even Christ who was of the tribe of Judah, as well as the majority of His Jewish disciples. They would have been going against the Law of Moses if they had exacted a tithe from the people, proving beyond all doubt that no such "commandment" would have been enforced upon their followers. For them to do so, they would have been adding something to God's law that He had not prescribed of them to do. But as we will soon see in just a moment, people in many ways supported Christ and His apostles, but they were not supported by a tithe. Again, they had no "command" from God to "take" tithes from the people, as the Levites were clearly "commanded" of God to do. Tithing to Levites in the OT wasn't to set a precedent for future giving in the Church. Like all the sacrifices and offerings in the OT (and even the priesthood), the tithe that was given to the high priest (or Christ) and to his priests (or us) was a type that was to show how God has a "portion," "allotment," and an "inheritance" of people in the world who belong strictly to Him and to His people. As Paul says in Romans 15:16, as "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles [as well] might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." And we shall all come before Him rejoicing, while bringing in His sheaves.

And finally, how can Abraham’s tithe "of the spoils of war," which (like circumcision) was also before the law and thought naively (by not a few no less) to be included in the law, be any different than circumcision which was entirely abrogated at the cross? For if “Abraham’s everlasting covenant” of circumcision (see Gen. 17:9-14) is canceled (naturally speaking), how then can the much weaker precedent of “Abraham’s tithe” which was not commanded of him like circumcision, and which was also denoted as an “everlasting ordinance” under the Mosaic Law (Num. 18:21-24), remain in effect? Clearly, it can't! And we can now see that the argument in favor of tithing based upon the precedent of Abraham’s covenant being an "everlasting" covenant is hopelessly flawed. The problem (or rather, the solution) is that the argument applies equally well both to circumcision and to tithing. As goes the one, so goes the other. When we consider the spiritual principles that Paul taught us with regards to the command of literal circumcision being "everlasting" in the person and work of Christ, we can now see how this same principle also nullifies the command of literally tithing as an "everlasting" ordinance as well, yet now also spiritually realized as "everlasting" in the person and work of Christ. And no one would doubt that this also applies to the burnt offerings as well.

E. What About Noah? If Noah paid tithes to a high priest as Abraham did, then where was that righteous person to whom he paid tithes to on the ark? Surely, Abraham didn’t get his idea from Noah. As said before, Abraham was only practicing what those in his homeland had customarily practiced when they plundered other kings and nations, but only Abraham did it unto the true God and unto a righteous king of Jerusalem called Melchizedek.

F. Summary: Now either the Lord changed the law for the Israelites with respect to the way in which Abraham was commanded to tithe (if indeed he was commanded), or there was no such "commandment" imposed upon him at all to begin with! The latter is to be preferred, as already proven above; and more will be said below to give strength to this argument when we come to the subject of "vows" under the law, and what could or could not be vowed to the Lord, as Jacob did with regards to tithing. But, clearly, under the law of Moses a tithe was NOT commanded of the Lord from the “plunder” or “spoils of war.” And except in certain instances, God’s law on the spoils of war required all of it to be given to the Israelites who fought in the wars and to the people for whom they fought for. Additionally, God’s law on the tithe does not exact a tenth to be given from spoils of war, for it was completely from the agriculture of the people that God required the tithe. Again, it was strictly agrarian in nature.

Abraham’s tithe of the plunder was not a law handed-down to him by God, either before that time or afterward. Additionally, people of their own free-wills could give portions (or even all) from their plunder to whomever or for whatever; but they were not required of the Lord to do so.

As said before, the tithe was strictly from the agriculture of the land that the Lord would give to them as an inheritance when they entered the promised land, but not before that time. Additionally, those with other trades outside of agriculture were not required to tithe. And it was only under a theocracy of law that the tithe was "commanded," as well as with many other offerings. But with that said, all of those offerings and ceremonies were typical shadows of the spiritual realities that have now come upon us in the person and work of Christ.

Abraham’s offering up of a tithe of the plunder was like that of David’s “gift” to the elders, or the commander’s “gift” of gold to the Lord, or “some of” the plunder taken in the battles of David and his commanders dedicated for the repair of the temple of the Lord. And, as history attests, ungodly nations in antiquity gave 10% as a tribute or gift to their deities and kings; and so, Abraham, in a similar manner according to the customs of his day, gave a “gift” of a tenth to the one true God, and to the king and priest representing Him.

VI. Jacob’s Tithe: a vow promised.

A. As one would expect, we will soon see below that vow’s under the law of Moses in Leviticus 27 were not to be of those things that God had already required of the people to give to Him. And, vow’s, according to God's law in Leviticus 27, were all those things that were dedicated to God “freely,” being listed separate and distinct from those things that were already obligated for the people to do, such as giving the tithe: For the Lord has "already" said: “To that place…bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your TITHES and special gifts, what you have VOWED to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks….If you make a VOW…pay it….But if you refrain from making a VOW, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must…do, because you made your VOW freely to the Lord…” (Deut. 12:4-7, 11; 23:21-23). Scripture is very clear on this. The tithe as a commandment mandatorily prescribed by God upon the people was not, and could not, by its very nature as a command, be vowed. The people "freely" vowed, but the tithe was mandatory and commanded by God of the people. This alone substantiates the fact that the tithe was not commanded of Jacob, nor of Abraham, prior to the giving of an actual commandment to tithe under the Mosaic Law. If it was, Jacob could not have vowed it. Jacob could have "refrained from making" that vow to tithe. But as noted above in the Law of Moses, tithing was separate and distinct from vows. And this is what I meant earlier when I said there would be further proof for us that Abraham was not "commanded" to tithe. Again, Jacob could not have "vowed" that which already belonged to the Lord. But as a "vow" Jacob could have "refrained" from offering the Lord a tithe; he was "free" to do so. But not so under the Law of Moses. Further proof lies below.

B. Even the Expositor’s Bible Commentary affirms this idea in its commentary with regards to vows in Leviticus 27: “[the tithe] could not be dedicated by a vow.” (vol. 2, p. 653).

C. And Unger‘s Bible Dictionary also adds: “Vows [also called Votive Offerings] were entirely voluntary, but once made were regarded as compulsory” (p. 1160). [1]

This clearly indicates to us that prior to a vow being vowed, it was entirely at the discretion of the individual whether to vow something or not. And Deut. 23:21-23, as already referred to above, substantiates all of this for us. Such was the case with Jacob; and it would be entirely out of step with the rest of the testimony of Scripture to state anything to the contrary solely with regards to him. If the example of Jacob teaches us anything with regards to offering a tithe it is, first of all, that it was not mandatory for him (or for us) to do. Secondly, it is something that anyone of us can freely choose to do, if we so wish to do so. And thirdly, once a vow is made, God expects us to be faithful to our commitments. Jesus said it was better for us to not make vows though, but rather to just let our nays be nays, and our yays be yays (cf. Mat. 5:33-38).

So, nothing more can be prescribed upon us from the example of Jacob than what has been laid out above before us. Since it has been clearly determined that the tithe was not commanded of Abraham, and only freely vowed by Jacob, then where does that place all of this? It places it squarely in the category of a freewill offering for them, and for us! There is to be firmly settled in our minds no more questions or doubts with regards to all of this. Here is the answer that everyone has been looking for with regards to this subject of whether one should tithe or not.

If we desire to tithe, then by all means we are free to do so. If we don’t desire to tithe, then it is also our God-given right and freedom not to do so. No one should be placed under the guilt trip of the false notion of a “curse” if they don’t tithe, and then feel compelled or coerced to give ten percent by the compulsory preaching and teaching tactics of many misinformed bible teachers, preachers, and pastors. Such teachers know not what they are teaching, or whereof they affirm, and are actually only making "merchandise" of unwary Christians as those false shepherds who were noted earlier by by God through Ezekiel. When Paul spoke of us giving to others, it was not by way of “commanding you” (2Cor. 8:8), nor by way of “compulsion” (2Cor. 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” (ibid). This is the heart of NT giving; not by way of a "command," but by way of "freely" giving what we have freely received.

D. D. S. H. Kellogg, also writes in his commentary on Leviticus concerning vows, that they are “a voluntary promise to God of something not due to Him by the law [or by some "decree" as in Malachi]” (Studies in Leviticus, p. 559).

E. Now let's study Leviticus 27 with regards to vows to the Lord. Of all the items that were allowed to be vowed (whether persons, vv. 1-9; animals, vv. 9-13; houses, vv. 14-15; or lands, vv. 16-25), three things are listed which could not be dedicated by a special vow to the Lord. These are:

1. “…the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord’ (v. 26 NIV);
2. Things already "devoted" (or "vowed," v. 28), and;
3. “A tithe of everything from the land…belongs to the Lord’ (v. 30). Again, similar to the firstborn, the tithe already "belonged" to the Lord. And as noted above in Duet. 12:4-7, 11; 23:21-23 that we just read, the tithe is categorically listed as a separate and distinct offering from a dedicatory vow.

F. Summary: Under the Law of Moses, a vow to the Lord of what He said already belonged to Him, or what He had already laid claim to, was not allowed. As noted, according to Leviticus 27, such a person would be breaking the law rather than upholding it. All things vowed could be redeemed, except for; 1) the firstborn animals that were considered clean, v. 27; 2) things already previously vowed, v. 28, and; 3) those things vowed to destruction, v. 29. This chapter in Leviticus on vows further proves beyond all doubt that if tithing was a decree, a commandment, or a requirement before the Mosaic Law was ever written, then Jacob would not have been allowed by God to vow that which ALREADY “belongs to the Lord.” God’s law, quite clearly, does not tolerate it.

VII. With regards to the Pharisees (and all Jews still under the law) who were said to "tithe" in Mat. 23:23, Jesus said: “This you ought to do.” And in verse one Jesus said to His disciples while still under those laws: "do everything they [the Pharisees] tell you to do." Clearly this is said to all those who, prior to the Cross, were still obligated to keep the law of the tithe. After the cross, it is to be expected that Jesus no longer required His disciples to do everything those Pharisees had told them to do. That old covenant had ended. And the fact that Jesus calls judgment, mercy, and faith “weightier matters of the law” reveals that the tithe itself was indeed one of the less weightier “matters of the law,” but a “law” nonetheless. And a "law" with all of its attending ceremonies and ordinances that has since been abolished at the cross. But judgment, faith, and mercy are still upheld in Christ’s new covenant. They are retained and enacted, just as the N.T. undoubtedly says that they should be. But all the passing shadows of the ceremonies have faded, giving way to the reality of Christ and His body for which those shadows were cast.

VIII. Paul’s examples of giving in 1Cor. 9:7-14; 16:1-3 and 2Cor. 8-9:

A. Five examples are given by Paul in 1Cor. 9 for taking care of those who work in the ministry (and not just the example of those who received tithes and offerings under the Mosaic Law). And Paul is only saying this in order to validate taking care of those who have the oversight over us, in the same way that the women did for Jesus (and no more and no less). These five examples that Paul gives to us are: a soldier, a husbandman of a vineyard, a sheepherder, an ox, and those who worked in the temple. By Paul including those who worked in the temple as being worthy of being fed by the people, he was not endorsing that we should give ceremonial tithes and offerings today, but only some kind of sustenance for their services rendered. And if Paul had been endorsing "tithing" according the the Law of Moses, it would not have been an endorsement for people to give or collect money, as we have already learned from studying the OT laws with regards to all of this, but it would have been offerings that were “agrarian” in nature, or agricultural. On the contrary, Paul gives us many examples from various occupations or labors in life to substantiate that a laborer (whether man or beast) is worthy of receiving food and care from others. No case is being made here by Paul for people to tithe, but for compensation for various kinds of work, whatever a persons trade might be. If it is a soldier, three hots and cot; if it is a vinedresser, grapes; if a shepherd, milk; if an ox, grain; and if a worker at the former old temple, it was being afforded the opportunity to partake in what was being offered by the people. No person is capable of working full time for nothing. And although other apostles made use of such a right, Paul chose not to do so, working with his own hands as a tent-maker, not only to provide for his own needs but also for the needs of other.

B. The tithe (according to many Protestants and Catholics) is also seen to have found its continuance in 1Cor. 16:1-3 which, in fact, was only a "freewill" collection or contribution for the poor saints in Jerusalem (see verse 3 with Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-28; Gal. 2:9, 10; 2Cor. 8:1-6). But even some churches today, who attempt to impose the tithe upon the N.T. believer, do not teach that 1Cor. 16:1-2 refers to tithing. But some erroneously suppose that the giving here that is denoted to be in “proportion” to ones own prosperity, that this word “proportion” implies, according to them, "ten percent." But nothing could be further from the truth. Paul, who was well familiar with the O.T., was most likely using the same example found in Deut. 16:10, which says, “Then celebrate…the Lord your God by giving A FREEWILL OFFERING in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God had given you” (NIV). Basically, Paul is saying here, “freely you have received, so freely give.” And, so as God has freely blessed us, we should likewise freely bless others. And later on in 2Cor. 9:10-11 and 8:11-12, Paul recants what he had earlier told the Corinthians to do in 1Cor. 16:1-2: “Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and INCREASE YOUR STORE OF SEED and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way SO THAT YOU CAN BE GENEROUS on every occasion…Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, ACCORDING TO YOUR MEANS….The gift is acceptable ACCORDING TO WHAT ONE HAS, NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT ONE DOESN’T HAVE.” Once again, Paul is reiterating what he had formerly spoken to the Corinthians to do in his first letter to them, which as we can all very well see was giving "in proportion" to the ability in which God had enabled them to give. And it was giving "in proportion" to how the Old Testament clearly defines this for us; which was "a freewill offering" based upon what God has given to us. It is definitely not giving by way of some "commandment" or law, as 2Cor. 8:8 states. And it is definitely not paying a tithe.

C. Out of all the offerings that believers gave, Paul, as well as the other Apostles, had the right to receive out of those offerings a sustenance for themselves. And as Paul denotes in 1Corinthians, some of the apostles exercised this right. In the early Church, offerings were “distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 2:45; 4:35; see also 2Cor. 8-9), and this must have also included the needs of the Apostles. Occasionally offerings were collected just for Paul’s’ needs (see 2Cor. 11:7-8); but at Corinth, Paul chose to forgo this right.

IX. Hebrew 7: Tithing validated Melchizedek’s priesthood.

A. Is the message of Heb. 7 all about how Christians are to still pay tithes? Some in the Church today actually teach that this chapter, at the very least, insinuates this. But this is not the point of the author’s statements at all. Why would the author of Hebrews be teaching about a change (and many more of them at that), if the believers were to still to keep the "command" of Moses with regards to tithing? And even if tithing were insinuated here for us to still do, it would not be by way of a "command" under the Law of Moses, but by way of a onetime "freewill" offering that Abraham gave to Melchizedek. As denoted earlier under "D" in section V, only the Levites had "a commandment...to take tithes" (Heb. 7:5).

It is absolutely illogical to teach that the book of Hebrews abolishes every single ordinance that pertains to the Levitical priesthood, but not the tithe. In Hebrews chapter 7, the author was emphasizing the validity and the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, by the fact that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek by being in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes. The fact that the tithe is mentioned as being given to Melchizedek was just to further “validate” that another priest, who was not of the Levitical order, was to actually supersede them. The point or emphasis the author is making is not about tithing, but about there being another priest beside the Levites that was after the order of Melchizedek. The focus on tithing is only secondary to the primary focus and attention which is actually on the superiority of Christ over the Levites. That is what this entire epistle is all about.

Tithing, along with all the other ceremonies in the Tabernacle of Moses, “was a figure for the time then present” (Heb. 9:9). This is the purpose for which the entire book of Hebrews is written. Tithing is not an inherent, eternal, holy moral principle that anyone is consciously cognizant of. But if there is any eternal principle to be understood by it, it is in this fact: that there is a remnant or portion of all the peoples of the earth who belong to the Lord. And like the literal tithe under the law, we as God’s "portion," "inheritance," and "allotment" are all “MOST HOLY TO THE LORD.”

X. N.T. Giving and Receiving:

A. With regards to giving to the ministers of the gospel, Jesus didn’t tell His disciples to tell people to tithe to them or make it compulsory in any way, shape, manner or form.
No such teachings would come from the lips of Christ, or any of His disciples. Jesus and His disciples could not “legally” command people to pay tithes to them, for they were not from the tribe of Levi. They had no authority from the Scriptures to impose such a legal system upon their followers. And when that former legal system ended, along with the Levite, so did that law respecting tithes which were paid to the “Levites.” And when that legal system ended, it didn’t make it "legal" to "command" people in the church to tithe in an attempt to enforce it upon the people to do so. Such an idea is absolutely ludicrous! Christ and His apostles would have none of that. Jesus told the twelve, “Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his keep.” (Mat. 10:8-10). In other words, your provisions will be provided for you if you do what I have told you to do. Just have faith that the faithful worker in God’s kingdom will be rewarded!

1. “The Lord appointed 72 others, and sent them two by two," saying, "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages…eat what is set before you…” (Lk. 10:1-8). He did not say, “compel them to give unto you, and compel them to give unto you a tithe at that.” Jesus basically was saying, “If you are found WORTHY, you will be taken care of—I promise you. For there will be those who will consider you worthy and offer to take care of you,” just as those around Him did so for Him, as we see in the next example.
2. In Lke. 8:1-3, it says, “Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary Magdalene…Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” Notice it says “them.” Jesus and His apostles were all being taken care of by these women, just as Jesus has described would be done above in Luke 10:1-8. Praise God!
3. In agreement with Christ above, Paul also writes, “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” (1 Cor. 9:14). Clearly, Paul did not understand this any differently than how Christ lived and showed His disciples by way of example. It is the example that was just illustrated for us above in Lke. 8:1-3. They were to preach the gospel of faith, and to live by that faith in which they preached. They were “in faith” to believe and to receive of such things as would be offered to them. This was “living from the gospel” a life of faith that they were preaching unto others to do. This is all that was “commanded” of them to do, and nothing more. They were not being told by Christ to command others to provide for them, but just commanded to preach the gospel. And when they faithfully did that, they would receive their living through the faith of that gospel that was being preached unto others to live by.
4. Again Paul says, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘the worker deserves his wages.’” (1Tim. 5:17-18).
   
   Note that Paul says this after having just said that the Church should “honor widows who are widows indeed” in verse 5. Was the Church to pay tithes to these widows? Of course not. They were to be taken care of in the same way that the widows were taken care of in Acts 6:1 and 4:35, through that which was freely given by all the saints for “the daily distributions…as everyone had need.” These elders were to be “doubly” (or especially) honored even more so. And in whatever manner these widows were being honored, the elders were to be doubly honored.
   
   This idea of being esteemed more highly than others with "double" honor is found in 1Chr.11:20. Here in First Chronicles Abishai is elevated to a place of honor where he is more highly esteemed than the rest of his peers, with the NIV saying here that he was “doubly honored.” Again, this is where Paul got his idea from. Abishai was recognized for his work and elevated to a position greater than that of his peers. Such is to be the case with the elders “who rule well.” Like the widows who were worthy to be put on roll with those whose needs were to be provided for out of the daily distributions, the elders likewise are to be recognized from out of the daily distributions, but even more so! Elders who do not rule well, along with unworthy widows, are not even to be considered for such honors.

B. Jesus’ mandate for giving and receiving was: “Give and it shall be given unto you.” (Lke. 6:38). Everyone is to live a life of faith, from the shepherds to the sheep.

C. Paul said we are not to give out of “compulsion” (2Cor. 8:7, NIV). The Greek word used here for "compulsion" is again used by Paul twice for those who were making it compulsory to be circumcised by saying that the law required it (Gal. 2:3, 14; 6:12). The word is translated often: “compel.”

1. The meaning of “compulsory” is that which is: "required, obligatory, mandatory" (Webster’s).
2. The Greek word is anagkee (Strongs #318), and literally means: "out of necessity or by constraint." And to “constrain” means to dictate the actions or thoughts of others; to force, pressure or persuade.
3. Anything commanded, required, or obligatory under the law (tithing included) was considered “compulsory” for the people to do. Paul says that our giving is not to be out of “compulsion;” that is, as something that is imposed upon us as mandatory, required, or obligatory for us to do.
4. Paul made it plain to the Corinthians, and to us, what he meant by us not giving out of compulsion: He said, “I am not commanding you” (2Cor. 8:8). And yet just the opposite is being preached over many church pulpits today. Many naïve Christians are being told today, by those who are no less naïve, that we are “commanded” by God to give no less than ten percent; and even “compelling” us to do so with feelings of guilt and fear---and even with the fear of being "cursed" with a curse according to the words of Malachi for non-compliance. This is how all CULTS operate, as seen even in the cults of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons who even want to know what the people are earning, so that they can make sure the people are giving what they are suppose to be giving. I even know of someone who was in a church where the pastor asked all those in the congregation who were tithing, to stand up, so the rest of the church could see who was faithfully tithing, and to also subtly see all those who were NOT tithing and also make them feel ashamed for not having tithed. All those people who stood up got their reward; it was the praise of men, but not the praise of God. What they are doing is to be seen of men, while all the while God is looking the other way. What He does see though, is the widow who gives her last mite. The former is done out of "duty," the other out of love.

D: We are to freely give as we see the needs arise:

1. “Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only;…for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need….And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” (Php. 4:15-16, 19). As they faithfully gave from willing hearts, God would faithfully meet all their needs too.
2. “Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need….All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:45; 4:32-35).
3. “Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality” (Romans 12:13).
4. “Share all good things with his instructor….Therefore as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong the family of believers” (Gal. 6:6-10). Here’s the “double honor” idea again.
5. “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” (2Cor. 9:6-8).

XI. It is a well-documented and historical fact that records from the early church fathers, or from anywhere else for that matter, do not show any evidence that tithing was being practiced during the first 500 years of church history.

A. The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that, “The Christian Church depended at first on voluntary gifts from its members.” Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church says, “It is admitted universally that the payment of tithes or the tenths of possessions for sacred purposes did not find a place within the Christian Church during the age covered by the apostles and their immediate successors.” The Encyclopedia Americana also declares: “It (tithing) was not practiced in the early Christian Church.” Even the Catholic Church, notorious for its many finance raising schemes, says in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The early Church had no tithing system ... it was not that no need of supporting the Church existed or was recognized, but rather that other means appeared to suffice.” And we all now know what that "other means" was, as has been already noted above.

B. And as briefly alluded to earlier, Jewish Rabbis today do not collect tithes because they know that only Levites can collect the tithe. And they say there is now no need to, since the temple is destroyed and the levitical priests no longer minister. Today, Rabbi’s in synagogues work for a living, and accept freewill offerings from their congregations. This all sounds more like the apostle Paul, than it does of those in the church today. And I can't even believe I am saying this, but the Jews of today have got it more right on all of this than most of those who are in the church, when you would think that just the opposite would be the case.

XII. The following is all the Scriptures with regards to the subject of tithng: Gen. 14:18-24; 28:20-22; 31:13 (the “vow” of Jacob remembered by God); Lev. 27:30-34; Num. 18:21-28; Deut. 12:4-19; 14:22-29; 26:12-15; 2Chr. 31:2-12; Isa. 6:13; Neh. 10:37-39; 12:44; 13:4-13; Amos 4:4-5; Mat. 23:1-2, 23; Lke. 18:12; Heb. 7. A “tenth” is also alluded to in many of the sacrificial offerings, but those “tenths” (or tithes) are not listed here. Again, please read my article: The Typology of the Tithe, Firstfruits and Firstborn for a more comprehensive study on those texts of Scripture as well.

XIII. Below is also an outline of the progressive revelation of the tithe in the Mosaic Law: As with many doctrines formulated in the Bible, the tithe is progressively revealed to us in piecemeal form. Upon reading all the Scriptures in one sitting and gathering all the data in one cohesive manner, it is clearly seen that there is only one tithe spoken of, not three (or 30%). It was "one" tithe that was brought to the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon every third year and enjoyed by all the participants that were mentioned earlier above. The Jews were initially and formally instructed about this "one" tithe "every third year" in Deut. 14:28. It was then later stated again for reemphasis and for remembrance in Deut. 26:12. And again, many years later through the prophet Amos (4:4), God reiterates what they were boasting outwardly as an already stated and known matter-of-fact of bringing the stated tithe "every three years," and that these "outward" observances were of no value to them, since inwardly their hearts were far from the Lord. God does not mention three tithes by the mouth of His prophet Amos, but only "one" tithe that He says was offered "every third year"—the year He said it was to be offered way back in the days when the Law of Moses was first drawn up in Deut. 14:28 and 26:12.

If someone were to come to me as a minister of God and tell me they were tithing to me out of "necessity" or by way of a "commandment," then I would have to tell them: “Keep your offering.” But if out of an unfeigned heart and free-will spirit in devotion to God as Abraham did for Melchizedek, then I just might say, “By all means, feel free to do so!” By all means do what your heart necessitates for you to do as unto the Lord out of such a spirit, but not by way of a "commandment" or "out of compulsion" from others.

May God bless all of you as you "freely" and unreservedly give unto the Lord out of hearts of compassion for all people, but especially to those who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10), and even "doubly" so for those who rule well as Overseers. May peace be unto you, and unto all who follow after this rule.

The Progressive Revelation of the Tithe:
Not Three Tithes, but One
(to whom, when, and where)

A. The Introduction of the Tithe:
Leviticus 27
(all the produce, fruit trees, and livestock “holy to the Lord,” and not to be “vowed.” Non-agricultural occupations and someone with only 9 animals, or less, exempt)

B. The Initial Recipients of the Tithe:
Numbers 18
(Levites and Priests)

C. Additional Recipients of the Tithe:
(on the day the offering was made)
Deuteronomy 12
(the Givers)

D. Additional Recipients and the Year of the Tithe:
Deuteronomy 14
(the Aliens, the Fatherless, and the Widows.
Store it in Levite towns, gather it every third year)

E. Third Year of the Tithe Re-emphasized:
Deuteronomy 26
(Also, givers not to eat it while in mourning;
not to transfer it while unclean;
nor should any have been offered to the dead)

F. Tithe Reinstated by Hezekiah:
2Chronicles 31
(Storehouse in temple built)

G. Tithe Reinstated by Nehemiah:
Nehemiah 10-14
(fruit of all our trees and new wine and oil)

H. Re-emphasis of the Tithe Being Brought Every Third Year:
Amos 4

I. Exhortation To Do What They Knew To Do, But Were Not Doing:
Malachi 3
(“bring all tithes and offerings,”
“defraud [not] laborers of their wages,
[nor] oppress the widows, the fatherless, or deprive the aliens”)

Footnote:

[1] We see this by the fact that God holds Jacob accountable for the vow he made by reminding him of it later (Gen. 31:13). And neither do we hear God telling Jacob that he could not vow what had already been commanded of him to do, if indeed it was commanded of him. Clearly it was not.