Tithing and God's Sanctions
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation (Malachi 3:6–9).
The language here is covenantal. The prophet Malachi [messenger] was bringing a covenant lawsuit against the post-exilic nation of Israel. This was sometime in the late 400's B.C.
To God’s covenants are attached external, visible sanctions. These sanctions are positive (Deuteronomy 28:1–14) and negative (Deuteronomy 28:15–68). We know that Malachi was bringing a covenant lawsuit because he promised God’s visible, external sanctions.
First, he listed positive sanctions for obedience.
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith 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. 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, saith the Lord of hosts. And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts (Malachi 3:10–12).
Second, he listed negative sanctions for disobedience.
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch (Malachi 4:1).
God spoke through Malachi. He told the people that they had not returned to God. Yet they had returned to the Promised Land after the Babylonian captivity. There was a disconnect between their return to the land and their return to God.
What was the basis of this disconnect? Biblical ethics. Specifically, it was the ethics associated with the tithe. They were refusing to pay God His 10%.
Prior to the captivity era, landowners had owed their tithes to the Levites. The Levites did not receive rural land after the conquest of Canaan. So, God specified that they would receive tithes from rural land (Numbers 18:20–21). They represented God to the people, and they represented the people to God. The priests came from the tribe of Levi (Numbers 18:2). They officiated in the temple (Numbers 18:1–7). So, the tithes went to the Levites, and the Levites tithed to the priests (Numbers 18:26).
The system of land ownership was changed after the exile. The families of the conquest no longer owned plots of land distributed after the conquest. This had been predicted by Ezekiel. The non-Hebrew foreigners (Samaritans), who had been brought into the land by the victorious empires to replace the now-captive Hebrews, would keep their lands (Ezekiel 47:21–23). So, the Israelites’ tithes would be henceforth paid to the temple, but not on the basis of the Levites’ absence of land and inheritance. It was henceforth a matter of the priesthood’s position as God’s ecclesiastical representatives.
We know from the Epistle to the Hebrews that the institutional church is the covenantal heir of the predecessor of the Mosaic/Aaronic priesthood: the priesthood of Melchizedek. This priesthood was judicially superior to the Mosaic/Aaronic priesthood. The Epistle’s argument for Jesus as the high priest rests on the doctrine of the tithe.
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To 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 (Hebrews 7:1–2).
Jesus’ position as high priest rests on this hierarchical covenantal relationship of tithe-paying.
And 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: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him (Hebrews 7:5–10).
So, not only is the tithe still part of God’s new covenant, it is central to the judicial authority of this covenant.
Once again: God’s covenants are attached to external, visible sanctions. This is basic theology: no sanctions = no covenant. To imagine that God’s sanctions attached to the tithe no longer apply is to challenge the doctrine of Jesus as the high priest who died for the sins of His people. This is an inescapable implication of the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Conclusion: in times of trouble, pay God’s tithe to His institutional church to which you belong. In times of prosperity, pay God’s tithe to His institutional church to which you belong.
I have written a book on this: The Covenantal Tithe (American Vision, 2011). Download it for free here: www.CovenantalTithe.com. I have debated this with three opponents of tithing: Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views (B&H Publishing, 2011).