"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lords: it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it a fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed."
"And unto the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, even the service of the tent of meeting. And henceforth the children of Israel shall not come nigh the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin, and die. But the Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as a heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance."
Hence this first, or Lord's tithe, is known also as the Levites tithe, concerning which it may be convenient here to notice:
It may further be noted concerning this first tithe that the Levites to whom it was given by God, were required by Him to render a tenth of what they received as a heave offering to Jehovah, and to pay it to Aaron the priest, Numbers 18:26-28
That from this tithing no produce of land, or increase of herd or flock, is expected.
That the offerer has no voice in its disposal.
That though it was called a heave offering, the offerer did not receive any of it back again.
We now proceed to a second tithe, which reads thus, Deuteronomy 14:22-27:
"Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it, because the place is too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set His name there, when the Lord thy God shall bless thee: then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose: and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee: and thou shalt eat there before the lord thy God,and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household: and the Levite that is within thy gates."
Concerning the second tithe, we seem to learn:
That it consisted of the yearly increase of the land.
That it was to be eaten by the offerer, his household, and the Levite, with firstlings of herd and flock, but only at the appointed place of worship.
The object of this was that Israel might always fear Jehovah.
This tithe might be converted at home into money, to be expended at the capital for sacrifices and feasting.
The tithe-payer was to eat and rejoice before God.
The due payment of this second tithe involved a stay of at least a week each at the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, as well as a shorter period at the Feast of Weeks, Deuteronomy 16:3, 13, 16.
It will help us better to understand this second, or festival tithe, as it is sometimes called, if we consider the end it was to serve. All the males in Israel (with their families, if they chose) were to assemble at the sanctuary three times a year for the worship of God, Deuteronomy 12:6-7.
"And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock: and there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households."
The primary end, therefore, of the festivals was to foster religious principles and to furnish a time and place for social observances and the offering of sacrifices, all being done in recognition of God's bounty, and as acts of fealty and worship to Him. Now, in all nations, the main idea of a sacrifice has been that of a meal offered to a deity (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., "Sacrifice," by W. Robertson Smith, vol. 21, 132). In some cases the meal was made over entirely to the god; but more commonly the sacrifice was a feast, of which the god and the worshippers were supposed to partake together. In other words, the offering rendered, whether animal or vegetable, was sometimes wholly burnt; at others, was consumed partly by fire and partly by the priest; or, once more, part was burnt, part was taken by the priest, and a part returned to the offerer.
So, if an Israelite sinned, his appointed way to forgiveness was by sacrifice; and if he had vows to redeem, or thanksgivings to make, all involved the presentation of sacrifice. But this and other sacrifices were not to be offered in just any place the worshipper chose, Deuteronomy 12:17-18, but must be taken to the ecclesiastical capital, such as was afterwards established at the resting-places of the Ark, as in Shiloh, and in Jerusalem.
Speaking generally, the Jewish sacrifices partook more or less of the nature of expiation (for sin committed), of dedication (when seeking a favor), or of thanksgiving (for favor received); and according to the intention of the offerer was the kind of sacrifice presented.
In the case of the burnt offering proper, the priest took the skin, but all else was consumed by fire, Leviticus 7:6. In the case of the sin offering, the trespass offering, and the meat (or meal) offering, that which was not burnt was for the officiating priest, or the priests generally, Leviticus 5:2-10, 7:6-10, whilst, in the case of the peace offering, the breast and right shoulder only belonged to the priests, and the remainder might be consumed by the offerer. [I remember how these distinctions were practically brought home to my mind in India at Jaipur, where, at the daily sacrifice, I saw a goat decapitated before a Hindu alter. The head was placed on the alter, curtains were drawn, and the god was supposed to be left to partake of the meal in some mysterious way. Again, in Calcutta, as I approached the temple of Kali, I saw a man carrying the headless carcass of a goat, which he had just offered in sacrifice, the head having been taken by the priest, and the offerer being at liberty to dispose of the carcass as he pleased.]
Thus the Israelite would have the opportunity of eating and rejoicing before God, and feasting with his household; and the second, or festival, tithe, was intended to furnish the means for doing this.
Furthermore, if the first and second tithes be compared, it will be seen, by way of distinction, that whereas the offerer had no voice whatever in the disposal of the first tithe, the disposal of the second tithe was largely in his own hands; and that whereas the offerer did not receive again any portion for himself of the first tithe, he might receive in some cases the greater part of the second tithe for his own use, or purposes, as well as for the enjoyment of others.
We now come to a third tithe, Deuteronomy 14:28-29,
"At the end of every three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase in the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates; and the Levite, because he hath no portion nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest."
This seems to teach that:
A tenth of every third year's increase was to be laid up at home.
This tenth was to be shared by the local Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.
The object of this tithe was, that Jehovah might bless the work of the tithe-payer's hands.
Some think this was not a third tithe, but a triennial substitute for the second tithe, so that in the third, and again the sixth, years (as well as the seventh year, when the land was not to be cultivated), the Israelite would not take the second, or festival, tithe to the sanctuary, but would dispose of it among the poor at home.
Perhaps this view may have been in part suggested by the Septuagint, which varies the punctuation, and reads: "After three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase. In that year thou shalt lay it up in thy cities," Deuteronomy 14:27. [In support of this opinion may be quoted the words of Maimonides: "On the third and sixth years from the sabbatical year, after they have separated the first tithe, they separate from what remains another tithe, and give it to the poor, and it is called the poor's tithe; and not on those two years is the second tithe, but the poor's tithe." -- Gill on Deuteronomy 14:28; Maimonides, Hilchot Mattanot Anayim, c. 6, sect. 4. See also Speaker's Commentary on Deuteronomy 14:28-29, and McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, vol. 10. p. 433.]
Selden and Michaelis also argue in the same direction, saying that a third tithe should be an excessive demand upon the income of a man who had already expended two-tenths of his increase (McClintock and Strongs Cyclopaedia, vol. 10, p. 434). Peake likewise says: "It may be urged that it is not probable that a double tribute should be exacted from the crops." And again: "Nor is it probable that a tax of nearly one-fifth of the whole produce should be imposed on the farmers." (Article "Tithe," in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 780.)
On the other hand, as opposed to these conjectures, it may be observed:
That the Hebrew text nowhere says explicitly that the third tithe should be substituted for the second.
The injunction is several times repeated that every male should go up to the festivals yearly but neither the third, sixth, seventh, or any other year is excepted. [Some (and Professor Driver, International Critical Commentary, Deuteronomy, p. 168, among them) have supposed that, as the land was not to be sown in the seventh year, no tithe would be paid (McClintock and Strong, vol. 10, p. 435). But if so, how were the Levites during that year to live, unless a double or triple tithe was to be paid in the sixth year? And this the law had already provided for. "If ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? Behold we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase. Then will I command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years," etc., Leviticus 25:20-22.]
Besides, not going up to the festivals on the third, sixth, and seventh years would be attended with a further and practical difficulty: for if a man had sinned after returning, say, from the last feast of the fifth year, he would, under normal circumstances, be deprived of the opportunity of offering a sacrifice of expiation at the sanctuary until after an interval of two years.
Moreover, we have at least three witnesses of prominent rank for the third tithe being an addition to, and not a substitute for, the second tithe. The author of Tobit, for instance, when stating how he walked in the ways of truth and righteousness, notwithstanding the falling away of his father's family from God's command to sacrifice at Jerusalem, makes his subject say:
"I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts, as it hath been ordained unto all Israel by an everlasting decree, having the firstfruits and the tenths of mine increase, and that which was first shorn; and I gave them at the altar to the priests, the sons of Aaron. The tenth part of all mine increase I gave to the sons of Levi, who ministered at Jerusalem: and the second tenth apart I sold away, and went; and spent it each year at Jerusalem: and the third I gave unto them for whom it was meet, as Deborah my father's mother had commanded me," Tobit 1:6-8.
The foregoing quotation is the revised English version from the Vatican codex; but the reading of the Sinaitic codex is still more noteworthy. [I translate this passage as follows: "Having the firstfruits, and the firstborn and the tithes of cattle, and the first shearing of the sheep, I proceeded to Jerusalem, and I gave them to the priests, the sons of Aaron, at the altar; and the tenth of the wine, and of the corn, and of olive, and pomegranate, and the other fruit trees to the sons of Levi ministering in Jerusalem. "And the second tithe I sold away for money during six years, and I used to go every year and spend it in Jerusalem. And I gave them (i.e. the tithes) to the orphans, and to the widows, and to the strangers living among the children of Israel. I brought in and I gave (the tithes) to them in the third year, and we ate them according to the ordinance ordained concerning them in the law of Moses and according to the commandments which Deborah, the mother of Ananeel our father, commanded."]
Again, Josephus is quite clear as to a third tithe. He writes:
"Beside those two tithes which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring every third year a tithe to be distributed to those that want; to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans," (Josephus, Antiquities, bk. 4).
After Josephus we have the testimony of Jerome, who, like the preceding two witnesses, lived in Palestine. He says one tithe was given to the Levites, out of which they gave a tenth to the priests; a second tithe was applied to festival purposes, and a third was given to the poor (Commentary on Ezekiel 45:1, 565. quoted in McClintock and Strong, 10, 434). And so, evidently, Chrysostom understood, for he preaches: "What, then, did they (the Jews) give? A tenth of all their possessions, and another tenth, and after this a third (tenth)," etc. (Homily 64 on Matthew 20:27).
Once more, for a modern opinion to the same purpose, may be instanced that of Dr. Pusey, late Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who, preaching on Ash Wednesday, at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, is quoted thus:
The Pharisee "paid tithes of all which he possessed: a double tithe, you will recollect, one for God's priests, the other for the sacrifices, and yet another every third year for the poor: 4s. 8d. in the pound he anyhow gave to God, not, as our custom is, underrating property for the poor-rate, but a good 4s. 8d. in the pound on the average of the three years," Pearson, Systematic Beneficence, p. 11.
In fact, I can find no authority in favor of this supposed triennial substitution of the third tithe for the second, until the twelfth century, when Maimonides says that the third and sixth years second tithe was shared between the poor and the Levites, i.e. that there was no third tithe, De Jur. Paup. 6, 4. quoted in McClintock and Strong, 10, p. 434. But even then we have a contemporary rabbi of the same century (Aben Ezra) who says: "This was a third tithe, and did not excuse the second tithe." (See Gill on Deuteronomy 4:28.)
The reader, therefore, will judge concerning the plain statement of the law, supported by what we have seen was thought right by the author of the book of Tobit in perhaps the third century before Christ; and also at the time of Josephus (two or three centuries later, and when tithe-paying was still practiced), (see Sacred Tenth, pp. 79, 106) together with the testimony of Jerome (who lived in Palestine four centuries later, and may be presumed to have known how his contemporaries, at least among the Samaritans, were paying their tithes) whether all this is not more likely to be true than a statement such as that of Maimonides, who, thought buried in Palestine, yet flourished in Spain, but not until a thousand years after the Jewish nation had been dispersed.
As for the objection that a third tithe would be an excessive demand upon income the late Sir Monier Williams, Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, having referred me to passages of Sanskrit law, especially the code of Manu, the oldest compendium of the laws of the Brahmans, pointed out that the usual proportion of produce taken by the king was a sixth part (as we have seen was the case in Egypt), (see Sacred Tenth, p. 8) but that in times of necessity he might take one-fourth of the crop (Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 264).
We may remember also that, in the time of the Maccabees, the inhabitants of Judea seem to have been taxed to the extent of one-third of their seed and half of their fruit, I Maccabees 10:30.
For modern illustrations I would observe, that on my first visit to Bokhara, in 1882, I asked about taxes, and received widely divergent answers in different parts of the Khanate. At one place they said that out of ten batmans of harvest they paid eight (or four-fifths) for taxes; and at another, four (or a half); and that, a matter of fact, the beks took more and more, and as much as they pleased (Lansdell's Russian Central Asia, vol. 2. p. 187).
Again, in 1894, when traveling through most of the large towns of Italy, I was told more than once that the taxes then being levied upon the people amounted to at least 20 per cent of their incomes. Given, then, a conscientious Italian paying 20 percent of his income to the State, and, as expected by the Council of Trent, (session 25, ch. 12) another tithe, or 10 percent, to his church, and these demands, united, would be a heavier claim upon income than the three tithes of the law. Moreover, if Josephus could enjoin the Jews to pay three tithes for their own religion, when they were paying also taxes to the Romans, much more might the Mosaic law require three tithes under the theocracy, especially as the payment of these procured to the Israelite not a few of the judicial, educational, and social benefits for which other nations now pay taxes.
It would seem, then, that the Mosaic law enjoined upon the Israelite to pay yearly, in connection with his religion, two-tenths, and, at the end of three years, a third tenth, of his income.
Updated June 9, 20
Tithing: Biblical, or not?
Two of the most important bible study rules is to take any scripture in context with the scriptures above and below it, and to take ALL scriptures on the subject together to get a complete picture of what God has to say about any given topic.
Below is a synopsis of articles and books from a variety of sources on the subject of the tithe. This is presented as the "other side of the coin" and for your study and consideration. Please realize, tithing in and of itself is NOT a sin or evil thing to do. What this is an attempt to do is to present evidence showing that tithing (especially with the temple gone, and considering that tithing was of agricultural products) is no longer a command from God, and therefore NOT something any corporate or other body of people can require as being "God commanded."
Keep in mind this addresses primarily FIRST tithe. The issue of saving money for the Feast of Tabernacles, which some call second tithe, (second tenth) or providing for the poor, some call third tithe, (third tenth) are NOT the main subject of this article other than those three aspects being covered by ONE tithe (tenth of the increase from the land) in the past.
God's Feast is commanded, but biblical evidence for elaborate, worldwide travel, gifts, expenses, etc., is NOT available. To travel to far away places wouldn't be wrong if one could afford to do so out of his "increase," which will be explained below. No one ever had to travel thousands of miles to a Feast of God in the past. Even traveling hundreds of miles was likely never done.
Please review this material and prove for yourself the evidence. After reading all this, if you feel that tithing is required, then you should tithe. If you see the weakness in the biblical evidence for tithing, then perhaps you may have an impact on leading others to a willing giving, as people are able and as God has blessed them, rather than being compulsory. God doesn't need our money because God can provide all we could ever need. He is looking for obedience, and a willingness to give from the heart, and the unity of true Christians who work together as a body and NOT supporting divisions.
Perhaps tithing is just a convenient means to support the various divisions. Imagine if tithing were not taught as a biblical command...? Would we be more willing to unite and support the work of the Church as a group as Christ taught?
This discussion regards the required payment of money, or a 10th of all "increase," to support a ministry, often one which has become far removed from any resemblance to original intent by the apostles or Christ. Supporting the purposes of the structure of the Church is biblical and clear from New Testament writings, however the command from Christ to preach the gospel to the world was to all converted members, not to just a few ministers. The structure of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers" was specific for the Body of Christ, the Church and ITS preparation and growth. (Yes, we have structure to HOW we preach the gospel, but to marginalize most members from this process, as most groups do, is NOT scriptural).
Let's start with the Biblical Evidence:
Beginning in the old testament with Abraham, the first mention of tithing was in relation to recovery of items stolen from Lot, and Sodom and Gomorrah, period.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into your hand. And he gave him tithes of all. KJV
Some issues to consider with this are as follows:
The items brought back were not Abrahams. These were goods stolen from Lot and two cities, and some "spoils of war." Notice it states the goods were recovered... Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. KJV
Tithing is claimed to be on one's "increase." It states that Abraham tithed on "all," yet the goods were not his increase. He didn't intend to keep one piece of it...
Gen 14:23 That I will not [take] from a thread even to a shoelatchet...
...therefore how can this be addressing the "law" of tithing here when it states, "he gave a tithe of all," because none of it was his increase? Is this regarding a 10th of "all" he ever received throughout his life? That isn't clear here. If tithing a 10th is a law, why wasn't it included as part of the law, statutes and precepts which God provided? Why do we assume tithing was practiced as a command and NOT also assume that second tithe and third tithe were also required? Why do we assume the Holy Days were NOT known about and therefore just point to the first tithe as being valid here?
Notice there is no mention of Abraham tithing a "second" tithe or "third" tithe. We learn of the actual command for "second and third" tithes about the same time we hear about the command for "first" tithe in Leviticus 27, Numbers 18 and Dt. 14. If we assume first tithe was a law Abraham was following, why do we not also assume second and third tithe were also followed?
Numbers 31:9, 27-29 discuss the issue of spoils of war and what was to be done with them. No mention of tithing is made here even though 400 years previous, some say that tithing was a universal law that Abraham was obeying regarding the supposed spoils of war. Why then didn't Moses refer to this law if it was applied to Abraham's spoils of war? Wouldn't Moses be departing from this law in doing what he did?
In Genesis 28, Jacob is pointed at to try to prove that the law of tithing was what he was discussing. The points made in this scripture series are:
1. This was a vow.
2. IF... an important word overlooked by most, if God would do..., Jacob would give Him a tithe of all.
3. The context of this vow was in what God was promising to give Jacob and his descendants... Land, and what Jacob vowed to give in return... a tithe of all products provided through the land!
However, Jacob never received the land spoken about, but his descendants would and the vow would then be fulfilled, discussed later.
Jacob worked for Laban for 14 years for his wives and 6 more for livestock. Not one word is mentioned about tithing on any of it.
Joseph became the second in command of Egypt. He was responsible for preparing for famine. There is clear discussion of laying up the grain... 1/5th for Pharaoh, yet nothing was mentioned about tithing to God by Joseph of his increase, which he certainly had. Joseph would certainly have known about any tithing law, having received this truth, if it existed, passed down from Abraham. Why would he ignore this if it were a law and he had control over his increase? Remember, God was VERY involved with the plan to save up food for the coming famine. Certainly Joseph would have considered God's law of tithing if it were a law.
It could be argued that there were no levites or temple to tithe to... as there is none today... yet Joseph could have sent those tithes to Israel just as Israel came to Egypt to obtain food in the famine. If Joseph knew tithing were a law that honored God, surely He would have done so as a witness and example to the Egyptians.
When God provided manna to the Israelites, in Exodus 16, there is no mention of tithing on this increase. In fact, every man had to gather an "omer" of manna for every person in their tent. The Levites weren't provided a tithe of this omer. Why not if tithing was a law?
Exodus 20 includes the giving of the law. This continues on through 4 chapters yet not one word about tithing being required or "restored" along with all the other commands mentioned. This seems odd if tithing were a universal law. Certainly tithing, if it was a law, wasn't being followed by Israel those 400+ years, and would have had to be "restored" along with all of God's other laws.
When the Israelites left Egypt, they plundered the Egyptians. They had great wealth with them. Later on in the wilderness, (Exodus 25 and 35) God commands the Israelites to give as they are willing toward the support and construction of the Tabernacle. No mention of them having to tithe on this increase, even for God's Tabernacle. Exodus 36 clearly tells us this was a free will offering, not a tithe. It wasn't until a year later that tithing was instituted by God.
Throughout Exodus and the giving of the law, and Leviticus, all the way up to the very last chapter, chapter 27, and to the last 5 verses, we are given nothing on tithing. Referring back to Jacob's vow to God to give a tithe to God of all of the land... God then seems to be bringing up this vow to the remembrance of Israel and claiming what was vowed to Him... the tithe Jacob vowed. The tithe of the LAND was what was holy to God:
Lev 27:30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy to the LORD.
Neh 10:35 And we made ordinances to bring the firstfruits of our ground and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, to the house of the LORD; 36 to bring the firstborn of our sons and our cattle, as it is written in the Law, and the firstborn of our herds and our flocks, to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God; 37 to bring the firstfruits of our dough, our offerings, the fruit from all kinds of trees, the new wine and oil, to the priests, to the storerooms of the house of our God; and to bring the tithes of our land to the Levites, for the Levites should receive the tithes in all our farming communities. 38 And the priest, the descendant of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes; and the Levites shall bring up a tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms of the storehouse. 39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the grain, of the new wine and the oil, to the storerooms where the articles of the sanctuary are, where the priests who minister and the gatekeepers and the singers are; and we will not neglect the house of our God.
Nehemiah 10 discusses firstfruits AND tithes. Tithe means tenth, but the firstfruits amounts is not mentioned. It seems at one time God wanted the firstfruits of the land to go to the temple. How much is the firstfruits of an apple tree or any other crop? Was this the same as the tithe? Was this in addition to the tithe? Notice the statement "farming communities," suggesting that agriculture was what was tithed on. It also mentions that someone could "redeem" his tithes... That is, take them back but he had to add 1/5th more to their value in money. This is about as close to cash going into the temple as tithe as scriptures come... but it isn't the original intent God clearly states is to be tithed on. (Why someone would want to redeem tithes is a mystery, since he could buy the equivillent of the original tithes elsewhere, and save the 1/5th additional cost).
Levi 27, on the other hand, discusses the 10th animal being holy to God, but this doesn't mean the firstfruits. This means that the 10th animal is holy to God. If someone had 9 animals, there was none paid, and no mention of figuring out the value of the 9 and paying money as a tithe of that increase. In fact, monetary redemption of animals was not initially allowed. This means that people raising animals could NOT pay money to the Temple, but had to tithe of the flock or herd, (later changed once Israel entered the promised land) but the 10th (not first) animal.
Also worthy of note is the fact that God did not require second animal for a second tithe or third animal every third year for third tithe. On top of that, there is no mention of paying another 10th animal out of the NEXT 10 animals someone may have had. In other words, if someone had 50 animals, God did not require 5 of those animals (one 10th of 50) as tithes. (Of course, it is possible, since it takes time to raise animals to reach 10, that every tenth one born WAS given, which would be a "tithe," but again, of the land, not everything that comes in).
Tithing, throughout the old testament, was on agricultural goods. Nowhere is any mention of it being for any other item, such as money. I find it hard to believe that if tithing was commanded on all things, how could this amount of items possible be contained in the Temple or anywhere else? Sure, perhaps the tithes could have been taken to the Levite's land and stored there, but there is still no mention of tithing on non-agricultural goods. Mention is only made of agriculture and flocks, but nothing on clothing, utensils, pottery, farm implements, etc. (Even Christ was a carpenter but there is no hint of tithing on the income from this profession). If these were to be tithed on, why nothing about selling it and giving the money as tithe?
Israel definitely had a monetary system and money was used for many things, yet no mention of tithing on this money is made:
Ex 30:12 When you take the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul to the LORD, when you number them; that there be no plague among them, when you number them. :13 This they shall give, every one that passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. :14 Every one that passes among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. :15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering to the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
Imagine for a moment how much we are talking about if tithing of all things were true. We have millions of Israelites giving 1/10th of "all" they possess. On top of this we have all Israel (males) giving ½ shekel every year. This would have been hundreds of millions of dollars in our money just in this tribute alone. This was still followed in Jesus' time. The tithe would have been valued easily at 10 times this much. Are we to expect that this much could be realistically contained in the temple or ever used by the Levites and priests?
Why would there be a temple "tax" if tithing were being followed as some believe? Why would the Jews set this up as well, and why would God? Doesn't this seem excessive on top of all the tithes that would have been coming in had tithing of "all" been a law? Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to conclude that the regular tithe was of agricultural products and the temple tribute was "cash" for other possible needs?
Levi 25 commands a land Sabbath for every seventh year. If we apply this aspect of the tithing "law," we see that tithes (agriculture again) couldn't be paid every seventh year... something most churches are not quick to point out or accept. There is no mention about other tithes on anything else that wasn't land produced continuing during the land Sabbath. (There's also no mention of how the people who had the land Sabbath were able to keep the Feast that year).
There is no mention of tithes being required of fishermen or on lumber, or the many trades that existed at the time, or other manufactured merchandise. It is also noted that tithes were apparently not required from the priests. If tithing were a universal law, why did the priests not have to pay a tithe of their increase? Do we simply assume they did based on our present doctrinal position? God is no respecter of persons when it comes to His laws.
Some will argue that this system would be unfair... making just land owners and herd owners paying tithe, but didn't most Israelites own land and have herds and crops? One tenth of this material was not a burden for them and consisted of a vast amount of goods collectively. Those that didn't were likely those the tithe was there to help... the poor.
Israel, while in the wilderness, had very little, if any, agricultural crops or fruit crops to tithe on. The Levites received according to each man's own choices, but once in the promised land, stricter compliance was required for tithes.
Once in the promised land, all tithes were to be brought to Levi, but if this were done according to what we practice today, Levi would have become a tremendously wealthy tribe, above all other tribes of Israel. The Levites served in the temple for two weeks at a time out of the year. Other times, they lived in their cities and did not use tithes to live off of. The tithes were for temple duty use and serving. Had all Israel brought even one tithe of "ALL," there would have been no possibility of containing all that would include in the tabernacle or temple, and never used up if stored elsewhere.
Herein lies the likely actual use of the tithe of God...one tithe used in several ways in different years. Maintaining the Levitical priesthood, the Feast Days, and the poor. The restrictions on redeeming the produce and animals for money was then changed. Israel was spread out across the promised land. Traveling the distances to one place for the Holy Days with animals or agricultural goods was much more difficult here so redemption, without the 1/5th premium, was allowed. Now, Israel was allowed to use the tithe in a new way...
Deut 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field brings forth year by year. 23 And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou may learn to fear the Lord thy God always. 24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; (Tithe of the land) or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt you turn it (tithe) into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go to the place which the LORD your God shall choose: 26 And you shalt bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you shalt eat there before the LORD your God, and you shalt rejoice, you, and thine household, 27 And the Levite that is within your gates; you shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with you.
Up to this point, only the Levites were allowed to use tithes. Now, God makes allowances for all Israelites to use the tithe (same tithe) for Feast days... three holy seasons during the year, not just the Feast of Tabernacles. Notice, also, that if tithes were from income (money), why would you have to "turn it into money?"
In every third and sixth year, the tithe was to be kept in the Israelite's own home.
Deut 14:28 "At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. 29 And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.
The Tithes every third and sixth year were not brought to the temple or sanctuary, but used locally, given to the Levites and poor. This means that every third and sixth year the Levites AND the poor received of the tithes. If the Levites received yearly tithes already - "first" tithe - why would they need an additional "third" tithe every third year... or is this further proof that the SAME tithe is being discussed, and that the people were to administer the tithe every third and sixth year? (Of course, a principle can be seen here that, if implemented today, would eliminate any government welfare program, lower taxes for all and feed the truly needy).
This likely means that only ONE tithe is being discussed here, but used in different ways during the third and sixth years of every seven. "Second" and "third" tithe developed many centuries later via the Talmud, as historical records seem to show. Greed? Imagine that.
Dt. 14:23-27 speaks about food; eating and drinking. Nothing is mentioned about tithes for travel, lodging or gifts. Travel expenses were obviously necessary for keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, but to keep within the one tithe concept, the years' "increase" would be used for the tithe AND for the Feast. (What of keeping the Feast today? It is reasonable to save money toward this yearly event. They were authorized to "turn the agricultural products into money," to spend at the Feast for... food and drink (and presumably lodging), so today, we can save some money from our "increase" (more on that later) toward doing the same thing. If there is any real strength to a "tithe" being implemented today, it would be for the Feast, but we would have to include the "third and sixth year" rules as part of our belief system for ALL tithing. And, on that topic, why doesn't the COG observe THIS command for the tithes to be kept, every third and sixth year, "within our gates," for us to administer to the church and to the poor? That is a pretty clear command).
The Levites received tithes from Israel, but these tithes were received for temple duty. Each Levite had his "course" to perform and ate of the tithes during this time. Between these duties, they lived in the cities allotted to them by God, which consisted of a nice piece of land and pasture... approximately 4 square miles per city. Here the Levites could grow crops, raise animals and work for a living when they were not serving in the temple. (Dt. 18:6-8)
Josh 14:4 For the children of Joseph were two tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim. And they gave no part to the Levites in the land, except cities to dwell in, with their common-lands for their livestock and their property. 5 As the LORD had commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did; and they divided the land.
And their common lands = OT:4054 migrash (mig-rawsh'); also (in plural) feminine (Ezek 27:28) migrashah (mig-raw-shaw'); a suburb (i.e. open country wither flocks are driven from pasture);
For their livestock = OT:4735 miqneh (mik-neh'); from OT:7069; something bought, i.e. property, but only livestock; abstractly, acquisition: KJV - cattle, flock, herd, possession, purchase, substance. (This can obviously include sheep, goats and cattle).
From OT:7069 qanah (kaw-naw'); a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own: KJV - attain, buy (-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess (-or), purchase, recover, redeem, surely, verily.
and for their substance = OT:7075 qinyan (kin-yawn'); from OT:7069; creation, i.e. (concretely) creatures; also acquisition, purchase, wealth: - getting, goods, with money, riches, substance.
This surely indicates the Levites had wealth, substance and possessions and would also indicate that their possessions in their cities were NOT given to them as tithes, but were, in fact, purchased by them in the normal course of living.
Since the Levites each served a two week course in the Temple duties, what did they do the other 50 weeks a year? Surely they were industrious as the other Israelites were.
Lev 25:32 Nevertheless the cities of the Levites , and the houses in the cities of their possession, the Levites may redeem at any time. 33 And if a man purchases a house from the Levites , then the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall be released in the Jubilee; for the houses in the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel.
In Luke 1, we see the story of Zacharias, John the Baptist's father, and his service in the temple. Zacharias was a Levite and the story goes on to discuss this service for his 2 week course. Once this course was complete... Luke 1:23 "So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house."
The Levites, while serving in the temple at times, were seemingly also many other things as well; Teachers, judges, medical people, singers, musicians, law enforcement, architects and builders. They certainly had much more to do than occasional temple service. They only ate of the tithes of the temple while serving in the temple.
Malachi 3:8-10, in context, is clearly speaking to the Levitical Priests... Malachi 1:6-8, 10-13, 2:1, 3:3. It is interesting that Malachi and Nehemiah were written about the same time. In Nehemiah 10 & 13, we see tithing being discussed and the action which Malachi was writing about that needed to take place. Yet Malachi 3 is always pointed to regarding the tithing command...
Mal 3:9 "Ye are cursed with a curse: for you have robbed me, even this whole nation. 10 Bring youall the tithes"... plural...
Does this mean first, second and third tithes were to be brought to the storehouse? Does it mean tithes of ALL things, creating a major storage problem if millions of people were tithing of ALL they possessed into the storehouse,
..."that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. 11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, says the LORD of hosts."
This time period was one in which many things were being restored to the people. It was a time of drought and crop failures. Malachi was speaking to this nation, Judah, that was coming back to His laws. The blessing for tithing was on... what? The agricultural elements, not business, money, etc.
One has to ask, is America in any respect of the word, "cursed" regarding abundance and wealth? Of course, we can point to lots of sin and curses regarding breaking God's commands, but America has led the world in wealth and power for 50+ years. How can we use this "curse" to apply to us today, especially since 99% of the population do not tithe, yet many give to their churches and to charities?
Neh 13:10 And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field. 11 Then contended I with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? And I gathered them together, and set them in their place. 12 Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil to the treasuries.
Same time frame as Malachi. The temple storage was empty of food stuff... corn, new wine, oil... not money, not clothes, or other items. Nehemiah was addressing the very problem Malachi spoke of regarding tithes in the temple. If tithing was occurring on other items, the Levites could easily have sold these items for the agricultural products.
Levites, working only two weeks a year in the temple, didn't need cloths, baskets, hammers, shoes, etc., but they did need food to eat and it was right to feed them because they served the people during those two weeks and were away from their homes and property. It would be unreasonable to expect them to pay for their upkeep while serving all Israel and serving God. "A laborer is worthy of his hire." God provided for this by providing all the food they needed, and enough for the poor as well.
God established the tithe for the tribe of Levi and for the priests...
Num 18:20 And the LORD spake to Aaron, you shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt you have any part among them: I am your part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. 21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. KJV
The above scriptures tell us a few things: The tribe of Levi did NOT inherit designated land as all the other tribes did. God established the tithe of the land "for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation."
A question to consider is what exactly did God mean by Levi having "no inheritance in the land." It is clear they had the cities of 4 miles square, as well as their own homes, so what was not "inherited" by Levi?
Mt. 23:23-24; Luke 11:42; Tithing mentioned clearly, but this is because the temple was still standing and the new covenant was not yet in force. Christ would have supported tithing at this time. He also specifically mentions agricultural products in regard to tithing. No tithing of anything else here.
Luke 18:10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,'God, I thank You that I am not like other men — extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
In Luke 18 above, the Pharisee was obviously self-righteous. He mentioned he was NOT like other men in that he fasted twice a week. He said he was NOT like other men in that he tithed of "all" that he possessed. Doesn't this suggest that these "other men" DIDN'T tithe of ALL they possessed? If tithing of all possessions were the law, wouldn't everyone be doing it? Tithing of ALL he possessed wouldn't have made him "special" and more "righteous" than others if "everyone else" were tithing of "all" they possessed.
This certainly can't be used to set the standard of God's law. Fasting twice a week wasn't commanded by God, and neither was tithing on "ALL" someone possessed. The Pharisee believed, like fasting twice a week, that tithing on "all" he possessed made him "more righteous" than others who just tithed on agricultural products as God commanded.
Acts 5:3-3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast you conceived this thing in thine heart? You hast not lied to men, but to God.
Ananias and his wife sold their land, kept back some of it and then brought the rest to Peter claiming it was all they received. Peter clearly states that the money, once the land was sold, was their own and in their power. There is no mention of tithe, in any aspect of this encounter. We could presume that the tithe was previously paid... (taken for granted of course), but to whom was it paid? Tithe somewhere else, then bring the balance to Peter, God's minister who supposedly should receive the tithes? Makes no sense.
1 Cor 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Paul is clearly speaking to the brethren about receiving from them for his efforts in doing God's work. Many say this is speaking about tithing, but that Paul didn't want to hinder God's work by correcting the brethren about not giving to the ministry. Would teaching and correcting the Corinthians about tithing... if it were God's law, be hindering God's work? I think not. The very context of these scriptures doesn't speak about not placing pressure on them to "tithe" but that God expects the church to support the gospel. "Ordained" isn't the best word to use here as the Interlinear Bible shows...
Ordained = NT:1299 diatasso (dee-at-as'-so); from NT:1223 and NT:5021; to arrange thoroughly, i.e. (specially) institute, prescribe, etc.: - appoint, command, give, (set in) order, ordain.
Paul states... "Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?"
Some say this is clearly referring to tithing, and this is true, but Paul goes on to contrast THAT with "living of the gospel." Wouldn't a tithing law be part of such a gospel? Why would Paul make such a contrast? The temple sacrifices were no longer necessary and Paul knew this. He used the reference to tithes and temple duties as one picture, then speaks about "living of the gospel" as another... in other words, living of the NEW Testament gospel that directly addresses giving and providing for God's work.
If there ever was a time that Paul could have directly addressed tithing, this is it, yet he speaks of God supporting the work of the church through those things given FOR that work.
Some scriptures are quoted as a direct reference to tithing... "power over you" in 1 Cor 9:12 doesn't necessarily mean law or command:
Power = NT:1849 = exousia (ex-oo-see'-ah); from NT:1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: KJV - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
There are various ways to interpret this scripture, and the very first is "privilege," which is exactly what Paul is referring to. Notice Paul states that they did not use this "privilege", or "subjective force" so as to not burden them. Subjective means it was his choice to make to ask for support that should have been given willingly.
Paul spoke of no other church providing him support but the Philippians alone. He chided and corrected the Corinthians on virtually every other issue, so would he let slide not giving "commanded" tithes especially if it hindered the work of the Gospel?
Some claim he didn't so as to not put a "burden" on them. This would be making Paul the judge of what is God's law and what could be broken. Paul's character was NOT to back down from God's law, in this case, supposedly tithing, but wasn't willing to place a big burden on the Corinthians.
Notice 1 Cor 9:18: "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel."
How can we say that Paul is speaking about tithing here? He's plainly talking about doing his work of preaching the gospel without charging the Corinthians with supporting him. He didn't want to abuse the privilege to be supported by them. In other words, demanding and putting pressure on them that they cough up money to support him. Paul was much more converted than that.
Their "giving" spirit wasn't real spiritual as yet. Paul wouldn't call God's law a burden, even one part of it. The burden is men's traditions that extract various forms of finances, tithing being one taught under the guise of God's command. Paul trusted God to supply his needs, and God did.
Notice 1 Cor 9:19: "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more."
Paul clearly is continuing the context of giving and how he has accepted being the "servant" to the point of not receiving financial or other support from them. Look at all that Paul corrected the Corinthians on...
1 Cor 3:3 For you are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk as men? 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1 Cor 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1 Cor 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1 Cor 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Cor 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1 Cor 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
1 Cor 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law one with another.
1 Cor 6:8 Nay, you do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
After all this correction, on some pretty meaty issues, are we to believe that Paul suddenly became concerned that he might "burden" the Corinthians by correcting them on the issue of tithing? What happened to the blessings many point to in Malachi for "tithing?" Paul would certainly have reminded them about tithing blessings and NOT called it a burden.
The whole 9th chapter is on the subject of supporting Paul and the other apostles for their efforts in the Gospel. Paul actually DOES correct them about their un-giving attitudes, yet he mentions nothing about breaking God's law or any other aspect of a "commanded" tithe that they were breaking.
Philippians 4 further bears this context out:
Phil 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein you were also careful, but youlacked opportunity.
If tithing were commanded and an ongoing practice, then why would the Philippians "lack opportunity" to give to the work of the ministry? With all the church areas Paul traveled to, he certainly wouldn't have lacked funds if tithing were being practiced.
Phil 4:14 Notwithstanding you have well done, that you did communicate (be partaker) with my affliction. 15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated (NT:2841 = to share with others (objectively or subjectPively): - communicate, distribute, be partaker). . . with me as concerning giving and receiving, but you only.
Again, giving and receiving is the issue, and Paul is stating that the Philippians were the only ones that did anything toward providing for Paul's needs up to that point...
:16 For even in Thessalonica you sent once and again to my necessity. 17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. 18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.
Paul clearly distinguishes the fact that the giving they did was to his necessity, but that it wasn't because he wanted a gift, but that their free willed giving which came from their hearts would please God and be a spiritual blessing to them. Paul wouldn't call what was commanded by God, a "gift" or treat it as such. A gift clearly implies free will giving.
Lastly, in 2 Cor 11:7 Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that you might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so will I keep myself... (Paul will keep... pay for and support, himself).
Wages = NT:3800 - opsonion (op-so'-nee-on); neuter of a presumed derivative of the same as NT:3795; rations for a soldier, i.e. (by extension) his stipend or pay:
Paul again is speaking about giving, not tithing. A wage is NOT a tithe. He speaks of preaching the gospel "freely." He mentions "robbing" other church areas so he could continue to do God's work in Corinth. He took nothing from them, even when he was in need, but was supplied by others in Macedonia. He certainly wouldn't have been "robbing" anyone if this were tithes he was referring to. Using the word "robbed" was to prick their conscience for their not being generous and supportive of God's work whereas others were.
Paul didn't want to be a burden to them. How can we conclude that tithing is an issue here? He wouldn't have hammered them on all those other spiritual points and then suddenly cower from mentioning tithing if it were a law they were breaking. The law they were breaking was in greed, or being ungenerous, which speaks of their carnality that he mentioned throughout.
I understand how these scriptures could be used to try to point to tithing, but this is just presumption based on the belief that tithing is a law. There is no real evidence in any of these scriptures that could override all the counter evidence pointing away from tithing as a commanded law, and toward giving and sharing as the spirit of the law.
1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Peter warns the leaders of this area that their reason for serving and tending the flock of God should be from the heart and NOT for the money they could receive. I have to ask, how many ministers would hang around as ministers if tithing were abandoned as unbiblical? What better tests the true calling of a minister to tend the flock of God... a ready paycheck guaranteed by tithing that provides a standard of living above most in the COG, or having to trust in God, and have faith that their needs would be provided by the church and living at the same standard as the rest of the church brethren?
I have seen the great Frankenstein monster created by the tithing doctrine do great harm to people, including the ministry. We have allowed this hierarchy to become blown all out of biblical proportion, in both unbiblical authority and in perks and relative prosperity.
If tithing is a law, why then didn't the ministry tithe on their increase? What law makes them exempt from this? Even the Levites paid tithes to the priests. Some ministers DO tithe today, and rightly so if they truly believe in it as a "law."
A study of Hebrews 7
Hebrews 7 is often pointed to as the pivitol scriptures claiming to support the change of tithing to the Levites, to tithing to the "ministers" of the New Testament Church. Is this what Hebrews 7 supports?
Heb 7:11 If 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?
The context begins here on a priesthood... one not after the order of Aaron... (the Levitical priesthood), but after the Melchisedec priesthood...
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Keep in mind that this is speaking about a single law... not laws... the law regarding the priesthood, and the law regarding tithing. So which "law" is this speaking about "changing?" The tithing law, according to many, but is this truly what is being referenced here?
:13 For... he (Christ) of whom these things (change of the priest hood) are spoken pertains to another tribe, (Judah) of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Point: The word "FOR" used throughout these scriptures has a direct relation to the preceding scripture...
NT:1063 gar (gar); a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles).
In other words, vs 12 is explaining and commenting on vs 11... vs 13, 14, 18, 19 and 28 follow the same pattern and carry the same thought or context clearly.
Going on with the above scriptures, "the Priesthood being changed" meant there would HAVE to be a change of the law also... otherwise, God's law would be broken. But what law? Not the law of tithing, but the law of who could be high priest. Notice Paul goes on to mention that nothing in the law was ever mentioned about another tribe other than Levi, (this sets and carries the subject of the preceding scripture, and it isn't discussing tithing) and certainly nothing about the tribe of Judah producing a high priest. Paul states that the arising of another priest, which is clear that it occurred, was NOT because of the "carnal" commandment, but after God Himself. Tithing isn't the subject of the "carnal" law being spoken of here, but it does clearly mention that the law being discussed was pertaining to who could be priest.... a high priest "who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment." This isn't speaking at all about a tithing law.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
"For"... (again relating this subject to the last scripture...) there is... what??? How much clearer can this context be? Paul states that there is a disannulling (cancellation, putting away) of the previous commandment... what commandment? It would HAVE to be the tithing commandment if you use these scriptures to support tithing today.
This scripture clearly states the commandment or law being discussed in these scriptures was canceled because of its unprofitableness. Why isn't this scripture considered when claiming this is speaking about the tithing law being "changed" to ministers today? It says nothing here about change, but of annulment. If anything, tithing is clearly being canceled and put away as unprofitable if you believe the subject is tithing in vs 12.