Okay, since I'm gonna go against the flow on this one, it's for my kids; I want them to understand why I don't believe in tithing.


I. Genesis 14

It's 6:30am. I woke up thinking about Abraham and Melchizedek. Abraham gave tithes to the priest/king Melchizedek in Genesis 14. This has been used as a foundational chapter for New Testament tithing since we are not under the Law, and since Abraham was tithing BEFORE the Law.

Let's look at Abraham's tithe. Let's ask some questions and make a few observations.

What is the context of Genesis 14? There was a battle between 5 kings and 4 kings. One of the kings was the king of Sodom, where Abraham's nephew Lot lived. Lot was taken captive along with the other inhabitants of Sodom. Somebody escaped and found Abraham. Abraham, along with his confederates (v. 13), pursued the army a great distance and eventually attacked them by night and won. Abraham brings back "all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people." (v. 16) When he gets back home, ALL the kings go out to meet him - remember, these are city kings, small kings - the king of Sodom is there, and the other kings, and a new king also comes. This is Melchizedek. He brings out bread and wine. He is not only the king of ancient Jerusalem, he is a priest as well. He blesses Abraham, and tells Abraham that God has blessed him. And then Abraham gives him tithes of all (v. 20). Melchizedek was apparently the BIG king of the area since he shows up at this gathering and none of the other kings says anything to him; he was the king of Jerusalem after all.

Basically, the teaching of this chapter is this - If a bully beats up your friend and takes his lunch money ($1), and you chase after the bully and beat him up, recovering the $1, then you should give God 10 cents.

Does that sound like NT tithing as taught today? Was Abraham tithing on his weekly paycheck or on the spoils of war? Was this a weekly payment or a one time incident? Was this a tithe on an increase, or on what he had already owned?

Here are some references showing that paying a tithe of the spoils of war was a COMMON practice back then:

"In the same manner the Greeks too, the Carthaginians, and the Romans devoted a tenth portion of the spoils of war to their deities." (On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest , emphasis added)

"The Greek League against Persia, founded in 481 vows a tenth of the spoils of war to the shrine (7:132), and this happens, after Salamis and Plataea." (Herodotus on Greek Religion , emphasis added)

"During the twelfth century, evidence points clearly to the growing significance of warfare in the life of the towns, especially in Portugal, Leon, Castile and Aragon. Precise indications of this development are demonstrated in the increasing concern demonstrated by the makers of the municipal charters in three areas closely related to booty. The first is the royal demand to collect the one-fifth tax on the spoils of war, a tax the Christian rulers inherited from the Muslim practice of laying aside a portion of the gains of the jihad for Allah." (Spoils and Compensations , emphasis added)

"For his courageous role in helping to take the Volscian town of Corioli, Caius Marcius, declining to accept one-tenth of the spoils, was named Coriolanus" (Roman Expansion to 133 BC , emphasis added)

"In the days of Abu Bakr much wealth came to the state on account of the spoils of war. The movable property won as booty on the battlefield was known as "Ghanimah". Four-fifth of the spoils of war was immediately distributed among the soldiers who had taken part in the battle. The remaining one-fifth went to the State. The State's one-fifth share was further divided into three parts. One part went to the family of the Holy Prophet, one part went to the Caliph, and one part was spent for welfare purposes." (Political, Social, Economic and Military Organization , emphasis added)

"TITHES, a form of taxation, secular and ecclesiastical, usually, as the name implies, consisting of one-tenth of a man's property or produce. The tax probably originated in a tribute levied by a conqueror or ruler upon his subjects, and perhaps the custom of dedicating a tenth of the spoils of war to the gods led to the religious extension of the term, the original offerings to deity being "firstfruits."
The custom was almost universal in antiquity; for Greece and Rome see Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2306, 2423; for Babylon, M. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 668; for China, J. Legge, Chinese Classics, i. 119; for Egypt, G. Maspero, Struggle of Nations, p. 312.f The general notion of tax or tribute often prevailed over that of "the tenth" part, so that in Dion Halicarnassus (i. 23) and Philo (Dc mutat. noin.~. 607) hirapxai and &thTat are synonymous, and in Mahommedan law the "tithe" is sometimes only -510th or ~f'eth." (1911 Encyclopedia , emphasis added)

"To maintain a warband a lord needed a constant supply of commodities to support the warriors and gold and silver to give out as gifts. There were two ways in which these could be obtained. If the warband were strong enough they could raid neighbouring regions and either force them to yield tribute or just carry off valuables. Cattle were a particular target of this activity, because of the relative ease of driving them from one area to another. Since raids would often lead to battles, another type of booty would be the wargear of vanquished opponents. The pillaging of the dead is frequently mentioned in poetry; Ongentheow's body is stripped of his sword and helmet (Beowulf line 2986) and a Viking warrior attacks Byrhtnoth with the intention of taking his sword, armour and rings (Battle of Maldon line 160). It is not clear how these spoils of war would be divided, but it is likely that the majority would have been distributed among the participants in the raid with a proportion being retained by the lord." (The Social Context of Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England , emphasis added)

"The inscription on the base reads: "The Messenians and Naupactians dedicated this to Olympian Zeus, a tithe from the spoils of war. Paionios of Mende made this, and was victor [in the competition] to make the akroteria for the temple"." (The Nike of Paionios , emphasis added)

"Through the spoils of war, Edward was able to refill the bankrupt treasury. Heavily ransomed prisoners, brought fortunes in gold coin to their noble captors--who, in turn, paid a handsome tithe to the King." (Edward III: King of Illusions , emphasis added)

"It was traditional to give the Byzantine Government a set percentage of the spoils of war." (Chapter III: Eastern Expansion , emphasis added)

II. Hebrews 7

Then there is always the NT reference to this event which is contained in Hebrews 7. Let's look at this passage in a more verse-by-verse manner. Before we do, remember that the context of Hebrews 7 is that "Christ is greater than..."

In Chapter 1, Christ is greater than the angels. In Chapter 3, Christ is greater than Moses. In both Chapters 5 & 6, Christ is said to be called of God "an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." (5:6, 10; 6:20) This leads to Hebrews 7, where the writer of Hebrews will be teaching that Melchizedek is greater than Levi, and hence, Christ is a greater High Priest than Aaron.

The context is NOT a dissertation on tithing; it is the GREATNESS of Christ.

With that in mind, let's look at Hebrews 7.

¹For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

²To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

³Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

⁴Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

⁵And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Observation: No mention is made of Melchizedek having received a commandment to "take tithes of the people" but the OT Levites did have a commandment to do so. Abraham's giving was voluntary not compulsory. Abraham's giving was a one time event not a pattern for life.

I have heard preachers try to play with the words associated with tithing. They say, "We are not paying tithes, we are giving tithes." No. No, what you are doing is taking tithes of the people. That's what the Bible says.

⁶But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

⁷And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Abraham paid tithes to someone who was, first, not a Levite, and who was, second, greater than himself.

⁸And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Basically, Melchizedek is greater than Levi because Levi was mortal whereas Melchizedek was eternal.

⁹And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

¹⁰For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Watch this. Levi, the child of Abraham, was not yet born; he was still in his father's loins. Since Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, then Levi is counted to have given tithes to Melchizedek also! (We partake of Adam's sin in exactly the same way.)

¹¹If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

¹²For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Law was given under the auspices of the Levitical priesthood; they are bound together. If perfection (being made righteous before God) was an outcome of the Levitical Law, then why change it? Why change the priesthood by calling Christ a priest "after the order of Melchizedek"?

¹³For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

¹⁴For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

The Law was associated with the tribe of Levi, not the tribe of Judah. Christ came out of Judah. Moses never mentioned any priesthood in connection with Judah. This shows that God is changing the priesthood and the Law. He is doing away with one in order to implement another.

¹⁵And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

¹⁶Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

¹⁷For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

But there is even greater evidence that God is changing the priesthood - He said that he was when he called Christ a PRIEST after the order of Melchizedek!

¹⁸For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

NOTE: The Levitical law was done away with. Disannulled. Blotted out (Colossians 2). Abolished (Ephesians 2). This obviously includes the commandment to the Levitical priests to "take tithes of the people."

¹⁹For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

The New Testament makes men perfect; the Old Testament, including the old priesthood and tithe, never did.

²⁰And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

²¹(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

²²By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Under the Old Testament, men were made priests without an oath from God; under the New Testament, Christ is made a better priest by the oath of God.

²³And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

²⁴But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

²⁵Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Under the Old Testament, the high priest died; under the New Testament, Christ lives forever to make intercession for us.

²⁶For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

²⁷Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

²⁸For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

That is, Christ is a better high priest.

Observation: The Levitical priesthood was done away with. The Levitical law was done away with. The Levitical tithing system was done away with.

So why are we still quoting Malachi 3 in our New Testament churches???


III. Other Reasons

1. In Acts 15:20, the early Jewish church came to a decision regarding which parts of the Old Testament would still be applicable to the New Testament Gentile churches. Here is what they said,

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

The tithe is NOT mentioned.

2. The Lord Jesus was a carpenter by profession until he became a wandering teacher/preacher. Neither of these professions were required to tithe under the Law. The Corner Stone of the Church, the Lord himself, did not pay tithes.

3. Peter, James and John were fishermen. There was no law that said that fishermen had to pay tithes either. Leviticus 27:30-33, Deuteronomy 14:23 explains that the tithe applied to farmers to shepherds, to seeds and cattle. It, therefore, did NOT apply to anyone else.

4. As a matter of fact, NONE of the Apostles would have paid tithes. Not one of them was a farmer or a shepherd. So, not only did the Corner Stone of the Church NOT pay tithes, but neither did the first foundation stones either.

5. When Peter caught the fish that had money in its mouth, he would NOT have tithed on it. Why not? No one ever paid tithes on money. They paid tithes on seed and cattle, but NOT on money. The fish money was to pay a tax, called tribute money, not a tithe.

6. Paul did NOT tithe. The apostle to the Gentiles was a tent maker. Tent makers did NOT have to tithe.

7. Jesus never taught his disciples about tithing. In Matthew 23 and Luke 11, the Lord Jesus is addressing the Pharisees when he says, "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God..." The Lord was rebuking hypocritical religiousness of the Pharisees, not giving instructions to his disciples. And, then again, in his parable about the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18), the one who is justified before God is NOT the one who "gives tithes of all" he possesses. Jesus teaches that the repentant sinner who doesn't mention tithing is the one who is justified.

8. Under the Law, money was never used to tithe, only food was. In fact, when someone wanted to use money to bring the produce to Jerusalem, God required a 20% penalty to be added. God actually discouraged tithing money! Is that what your pastor teaches?

9. Under the Law, the tithe was given to the Levitical priesthood because they weren't allowed to get real jobs, own property, etc. The tithe was their portion. Is that the way it is with today's pastors? No.

10. The tithe was to be taken to one place, the Temple at Jerusalem. It could not be taken to the local synagogue. It had to go to the Temple. Why? It was to support the Levitical priesthood. It was not sent to the Temple. It was taken to the Temple. The owner of the field or herd brought the tithe; he wasn't allowed to mail it in. There is NO teaching in the New Testament that states the tithe now belongs to the local church. Calling the New Testament tithe by the term "storehouse tithing" is a thinly veiled attempt to use 1 Corinthians 16:2 to teach tithing. This verse says, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." It is clearly teaching that when Paul comes to collect money for the poor, he wants them to have the money already gathered so he doesn't have to waste time getting it all together. Why? Because he was coming to get money for the poor believers in Jerusalem ("collection for the saints," vs. 1) who were starving during a time of famine.

11. Under the Law, the tithe was taken by the Levites, not paid by the Levites. One of the silliest things to me is seeing a Pastor tithe. Why not just take a decrease in salary by 10% and call it even? Why the need to take a full paycheck, and then write back a check for 10%? The money still ends up in the church's bank account. Of course, the paper trail sure does look nice to others, doesn't it? And nothing is more awe-inspiring than the example of a Pastor reaching in his pocket while standing on the platform, reaching waaayy over and dropping his envelope into the plate just "as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matt. 6:2)

12. The Bible does NOT teach that the poor were to tithe. (Somebody needs to preach on this one!) The poor did not own fields or herds, so they had nothing to tithe off of. As a matter of fact, the poor and widows and strangers were to benefit from the tithe (Deut. 14:29); they were NOT to pay the tithe. Robbing widows and the poor in the name of God and Malachi 3 will certainly not bring the blessings of God upon any church.

13. Tithing is NOT fair. "If everybody pays 10%, then it's all the same to everybody." No, it's not. If the boss makes $100,000 each year, and gives $10,000 to the church, then he is giving out of his abundance. If the employee makes $10,000 each year, and gives $1,000, then he is giving out of his poverty. Jesus said that the widow who gave her mite was giving more than all the rich folks who gave out of their abundance. Why did he say this? Because he knew that giving out of poverty is ALWAYS sacrificial, a lesson that many pastors have yet to learn. (The widow was giving alms by the way, not tithing. Under the Law, the widows were to benefit from the tithe, not pay the tithe.)

And on and on, and et cetera.

I believe in giving. I believe in blessing others. But Proverbs 22:16 says, ". . . he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want. " And most churches today are just that - RICH.

Amen??