Tithes and Offerings: A Tenth?

From my formative years, I always understood a tithe to mean ten percent. Looking through the lens of Strong’s, it certainly seems to mean that in the Old Testament. As we move on to the New Testament, we see the definition of the word translated as a tithe change. Of course we are comparing words originally written in Hebrew with words in Greek, but there is a distinction between the meanings of the words here. According to Strong’s, the Hebrew word translated as tithe usually means a tenth. Very straight forward. As we move into the Greek, the word takes on new meaning to refer primarily to a debtor or creditor.

I find it difficult to believe that the Greeks, with their philosophical, artistic and architectural achievements, would not have a word to use in the Bible meaning a numerical tenth. Full disclosure here: I have not taken any courses in Greek, nor have I studied this topic beyond the tools that are easily accessible to the laity. However, it still bears repeating that the tools I used led me to the conclusion that there was a change of heart regarding the offerings given in the temple by the time Rome was fully in control of Israel.

The change came, I believe, as the people forgot to look upon the Lord in their trouble and instead became complacent in their Roman citizenship. They may have despised their place under the emperor, but with some exceptions they seemed rather comfortable joining the political games and looking to Caesar for their security. With the taxes rendered to Caesar as their guarantee, the promise of God to deliver them must have seemed a bit less urgent. Therefore, why pay two masters for security, especially when one is present and very visible?

This is all speculation of course, but it does make sense. Why would a person want to pay the temple tax for their safety from God when that need has been met by another? They continued to await their deliverer, but the plight they would be delivered from was not what they were looking for. They wanted a king to drive out the Romans, but Jesus came to deliver them from a far worse trouble.

John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

I included all of this to say that the people were more inclined to tithe when they could see that the Lord was their shield. Also, the tithe in the law of Moses was much greater than 10% but what we would consider to be a governmental tax was included into it. The work of the government was to be seen by the people as the work of God. Defense, infrastructure and more was to flow from the priesthood, so we would need to look elsewhere to fine a true 10% measure and the most apparent place we see this is in the accounting of Abram and Melchizedek.

In this brief passage, we see that Melchizedek was a king and a priest of God. He brought bread and wine to Abram and blessed him and also God. Abram responded by giving Melchizedek a tenth of everything. It is not a stretch to say that Melchizedek is a type of Christ, sharing so much in common. Both are kings. Both are priests. Both provided bread and wine with a blessing. This is why some will use this passage to say that the correct amount to give in offering is a tenth, just as Abram did for this type of Christ. It is a convincing argument, but is it a convicting argument? Does this passage teach that we are to give a tenth of everything to the church or does it say something greater? Let’s allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, the clear will help us understand the shadow.

Hebrews 7:4-10
See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And 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 who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

It is important to remember our context when reading the Bible. In this case, I would like to remind you that this letter was written to the Jewish people of the day to show them through the scriptures that they accepted that Jesus is the messiah they had waited for. Through the word of God, the people who believed through this letter accepted the fact that Jesus did not come to drive the Romans out by military might, but that His army is not of this world. Though He did not meet their false expectations, He did meet all of the qualifications of Messiah and is both savior and lord.

Therefore, when we read that the descendants of Levi are to collect a tithe we can remember the original audience of the letter. We can now discern why an officer of the Mosaic covenant is mentioned in the present tense, even after the ascension of Christ. The author was writing to an audience of Jews who continued to try to please God with the law. Are we who are in Christ bound under the curse of the law? No we are not. This book was not written to us, but it was written for us. There is a difference. Continuing with Hebrews, we can see where I am coming from in this.

Hebrews 7:11-22
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

So we can see here that a change in the priesthood will also necessitate a change in the law. It was a part of God’s law that the Levites were to be the priests of the old covenant. They were not the first priests recognized by God, for Melchizedek preceded the law and was not even a descendant of Abraham. A change took place when the tribe of Levi became priests and another change took place when the lion of the tribe of Judah became the high priests after the order of one who wasn’t even an Israelite. Jesus is not a priest according to the genealogy of this world, but for His indestructible life (see Heb 7:15-16). Along with the blessing, the offering, the kingship and the priestly station, the indestructible life is the only other parallel the Bible makes between Jesus and Melchizedek. The giving of a tenth doesn’t come into play here and is not commanded of those who are in Him. Tithing is a requirement of the Mosaic law, not the new commandment of the blood of Christ.

Through this passage, we can see that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant. In fact, this fact is revealed in the same chapter as the “therefore statement,” showing the reader what the main point is to the entire chapter (Heb 7:22)! So since Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, we are beneficiaries of a better covenant of promise. This promise does not make us benefactors to the church through a rigid 10% tithe. We do have a responsibility to give back a portion to God from what He has given us, but that portion is not shown to be the same amount that I grew up believing. At least not from this text.