Why would you lie and claim the tithe isn’t applicable today?
Disagreeing with someone about what Scripture teaches is not the same thing as lying about it. I do not reject mandatory tithing because I want Christians to stop giving. The New Testament plainly teaches Christians to give generously, support those who labor in the gospel, and care for people in need. The question is whether God commands Christians under the New Covenant to give ten percent of their income to their local church. If he does, then we should teach it. The difficulty is finding where he does.
Part of the confusion comes from what Christians usually mean when they use the word tithe. In most churches, tithing means giving ten percent of your income to the local church. That definition is so familiar that it is easy to assume it came directly from Scripture. The Old Testament describes something considerably different.
Leviticus says, “All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is Yahweh’s. It is holy to Yahweh” (Leviticus 27:30). A few verses later, the command includes “the tithe of the herds or the flocks” (Leviticus 27:32). The tithe was tied to the produce of Israel’s land and the increase of its livestock.
Numbers places this within Israel’s covenant structure. God gave the tithe to the Levites “for an inheritance, in return for their service which they perform, even the service of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 18:21). Unlike the other tribes, the Levites did not receive a normal territorial inheritance. Their support was connected to their particular role within Israel.
Deuteronomy adds another dimension that is often missing from modern discussions of tithing. Israel was instructed to tithe the increase of the field and then “eat before Yahweh your God” the tithe of the grain, wine, oil, herd, and flock (Deuteronomy 14:22–23). If the distance to the appointed place was too great to carry the produce, they could exchange it for money, travel with the money, purchase food and drink when they arrived, and rejoice before God with their households (Deuteronomy 14:24–26).
In other words, the people giving the tithe sometimes participated in eating it.
The same chapter describes what was to happen at the end of every third year. The tithe was stored locally so that “the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the foreigner living among you, and the fatherless, and the widow” could eat and be satisfied (Deuteronomy 14:28–29).
There is legitimate disagreement about how the various Old Testament tithe passages relate to one another. Some interpreters understand them as multiple tithes, which would make Israel’s total contribution considerably greater than ten percent. Others understand some of the passages as describing different uses of the same tithe. That debate does not need to be settled to see the larger point. The biblical system involved Israel’s land, agriculture, livestock, Levites, worship, festivals, and provision for vulnerable members of the community.
That is a long way from ten percent of every paycheck deposited into the account of a local church.
If someone wants to argue that the Mosaic tithe remains legally binding upon Christians, he has to explain why the percentage remains binding while almost everything that defined and administered the tithe does not. Keeping the number while changing the goods being tithed, the recipients, the institutions, and the covenant in which the command operated is not simply continuing the Old Testament practice.
Abraham is often offered as the solution because his tithe preceded the Law of Moses. Genesis certainly records that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth after defeating the kings and recovering the captured possessions. Hebrews even emphasizes the event: “Consider how great this man was, to whom even Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the best plunder” (Hebrews 7:4).
The description in Hebrews is useful because it makes clear what Abraham gave: a tenth of the plunder. Neither Genesis nor Hebrews describes Abraham regularly giving Melchizedek ten percent of his income. More importantly, Hebrews does not cite the event to establish Christian giving. Abraham’s gift demonstrates the greatness of Melchizedek as part of the author’s argument concerning priesthood and ultimately the superiority of Christ.
Appealing to the fact that Abraham acted before Moses does not establish a continuing command either. Abraham was circumcised before Moses. The existence of a practice before Sinai does not by itself make that practice an ordinance for the Church.
Malachi presents a different problem because its language is much stronger. “Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me!” God says. When Israel asks how, the answer is, “In tithes and offerings” (Malachi 3:8). A few verses later comes the familiar instruction to “bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house” (Malachi 3:10).
When those words are spoken directly to a Christian congregation, the implication is powerful. Failing to put ten percent of your income into the church offering is no longer merely a disagreement about giving. You are robbing God.
The problem is that Malachi was addressing Israel concerning obligations God had actually placed upon Israel. The “whole tithe” was the tithe established within the covenant system we have already examined, and the storehouse was not an ancient name for the checking account of a local church. The passage itself says why the tithe was brought there: “that there may be food in my house.”
Israel could genuinely be accused of robbing God because Israel was withholding what God had commanded Israel to give. Before that accusation can be directed at a Christian for failing to give ten percent of a paycheck to a church, someone first has to demonstrate that God transferred that command to the Church. Malachi never does.
Jesus does tell people that they ought to tithe. In Matthew 23:23 he rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for carefully tithing mint, dill, and cumin while neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. He tells them that they should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.
They should have tithed. They were Israelites living under the Mosaic covenant while the temple and Levitical system still operated.
That context matters for the same reason it matters when Jesus tells a healed leper to “show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded” (Matthew 8:4). Christians do not read that statement and conclude that the Church must continue presenting Mosaic offerings to Levitical priests. We recognize where the command stands in redemptive history. Jesus’ statement about tithing should be read with the same care.
The most striking evidence, however, comes after the death and resurrection of Christ, when the apostles begin instructing New Covenant churches about giving. They have plenty to say about money. They arrange collections, provide for poor believers, teach churches to support gospel workers, address the responsibilities of those who possess more than others, and repeatedly encourage generosity. If ten percent remained God’s required minimum, these discussions provided repeated opportunities to say so.
They never do.
Paul tells the Corinthians, “Let each man give according as he has determined in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). In the previous chapter he says that a gift “is acceptable according to what you have, not according to what you don’t have” (2 Corinthians 8:12). When arranging the collection for Jerusalem, he tells each Christian to set something aside “as he may prosper” (1 Corinthians 16:2).
The pattern is consistent. Christian giving is deliberate, willing, generous, and proportionate to what someone actually possesses. Paul does not establish a percentage.
That does not mean churches should operate without financial support. Paul explicitly says that “those who proclaim the Good News should live from the Good News” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Supporting faithful gospel ministry is thoroughly biblical. So is providing for Christians in need. Rejecting a mandatory tithe does not require rejecting either one.
It does require us to be careful about turning encouragement to generosity into a financial obligation God has not imposed.
This becomes especially important because ten percent is an amazing fundraising proposition.
A fixed percentage creates predictable revenue. If that percentage can be presented as money God himself requires, the request becomes considerably more powerful. Malachi can then supply the accusation that withholding it is robbing God, while the promise that God will “open the windows of heaven” can be presented as the result of paying it.
In some churches the teaching goes further. Christians are warned that failing to tithe may bring financial hardship because God will not protect the remaining ninety percent. A car repair appears, an appliance breaks, an unexpected bill arrives, and the expense becomes evidence of what happens when someone keeps money that supposedly belongs to God.
The arrangement can explain nearly every outcome. If someone tithes and prospers, God has blessed his obedience. If he does not tithe and struggles, his hardship can be connected to his disobedience. If he begins tithing and his finances improve, the doctrine appears confirmed. If he begins tithing and his finances become worse, he can be encouraged to remain faithful until God provides.
The greatest problem with that teaching appears when it reaches the person who is already struggling. Someone is trying to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the electricity on, or care for his children, and instead of asking how the church can help him, we can leave him wondering whether his hardship exists because he has not given enough money to the church.
Paul’s instruction moves in the opposite direction. A person’s giving is acceptable “according to what you have, not according to what you don’t have.” He does not tell the Christian who lacks enough money that ten percent nevertheless belongs to the church and that God will protect the remainder if he gives it faithfully.
None of this requires assuming that every pastor who teaches tithing is deliberately manipulating his congregation. Many sincerely believe that Scripture commands Christians to tithe because that is how these passages were taught to them. But the financial benefit of the interpretation is precisely why those teaching it should examine it particularly carefully. When my interpretation of Scripture determines how much money you owe the institution that pays me, I should be extraordinarily certain that Scripture actually says what I am telling you it says.
There is also no reason that rejecting mandatory tithing should produce less generosity. In some cases it should produce more. A Christian with considerable resources may discover that ten percent is a remarkably comfortable stopping point. Another Christian may be in a season where giving ten percent would mean failing to meet legitimate responsibilities. The New Testament can address both without establishing a universal percentage.
Acts describes believers who sold lands and houses and brought the proceeds so that distribution could be made “to each, according as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34–35). That generosity could far exceed ten percent, but Luke never turns their actions into a new percentage that every Christian must reproduce. The emphasis remains upon generosity and meeting actual needs.
There is nothing wrong with choosing ten percent as a personal guideline. It may be a useful discipline, particularly for someone learning to make regular giving part of his finances. Someone else may give five percent. Another may give twenty. Someone with substantial wealth may be capable of considerably more.
The problem begins when a useful personal guideline becomes a command from God.
The biblical tithe belonged to Israel’s covenant system and involved Israel’s land, produce, livestock, Levites, worship, sanctuary, festivals, and care for vulnerable people. The New Testament does not transfer that system to the Church. Instead, it repeatedly commands Christians to give willingly, deliberately, generously, and according to what they possess.
So I do not tell Christians that ten percent of their paycheck belongs to their local church. I do not tell someone struggling financially that an unexpected repair happened because he failed to tithe. I do not tell Christians they are robbing God when I cannot show that God commanded them to make that payment in the first place.
Christians should give, and Christians should give generously. But if I am going to tell someone that God requires a specific payment from him, I want to be able to show him where God actually said so.
Ten percent may be an amazing fundraising proposition. That does not make it a New Covenant command.