|
An Exhaustive Examination of "Tithe," "Tithes" and "Tithing" Should the Church Teach Tithing?
Section 19 - Hebrews 7: Extremely Important
The Importance of Hebrews, Chapter 7 Hebrews chapter 7 is extremely important because it is the only New Testament mention
of tithing after Calvary! Although this chapter is not primarily a discussion of tithing, it draws heavily from Numbers 18, which
is the ordinance establishing the priesthood and tithing. It contrasts the mortal Aaronic priesthood, which was partially
sustained by tithing principles, with Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood, which is eternal and is sustained by grace principles
of the unlimited eternal power of God. While
“tithe/tenth” is found in verses 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, beyond this chapter the word does not appear after Calvary in the New Testament! Because of this fact, it is difficult to understand how and why biblical
researchers of the subject of New Covenant giving, as a group, ignore this important chapter. Strangely, many who do refer
to this chapter stop at verse 12. By ignoring this chapter in a study of tithing, the most fundamental rules of sound Bible
study are set aside. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph and for the sake of honesty to the Word of
God, this chapter’s use of tithing must be thoroughly researched and included in any legitimate discussion about
tithing. Three Pivotal Texts Involving Tithing It
is the goal of this chapter to accurately and honestly bring together all of Hebrews 7 (esp. 5, 12, 18) into the logical and
correct conclusion that the New Covenant teaches that tithing is not a valid doctrine for the Christian. The purpose is to
reveal biblical truth and move believers from a legalistic approach of giving towards the superior principles of the New Covenant. The Historical Context of Hebrews The
letter of Hebrews was written to prepare Jewish Christians in Jerusalem for the severe religious culture shock which was approaching. Soon after the letter was written, in A.D. 70 a
Roman army under Titus destroyed the city. The temple was destroyed and its sacrifices ceased. Jews were not allowed to enter
the ruins and rebuild. Consequently, the high priest and other priests were not allowed to perform any sacrificial services. The Root of the Problem in Jerusalem Because
of the importance of Acts 15 and 21, an entire chapter was to my book. The particular problem concerned the many Jewish Christians
who still considered themselves Jews first, and Christians second. It is evident from the activities recorded in Acts 15;
18:18 and 21:17-26 that there was no lessening of law-observances for the Jewish Christians in Judea. As a historical fact, most Jewish Christians in Jerusalem never did abandon the Mosaic Law; they later established their own Christian sect, and rejected Paul as
a heretic. The full impact of the meaning and shift of the gospel away from the Mosaic Law never did come to many Jewish Christians.
Such realization and changes of over a thousand years of tradition could not possibly occur quickly as far as Jewish Christians
were concerned. Paul’s letters to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians especially tried to explain
the shift away from the law. Acts 21:17-26 is crucial to understand for the context of Hebrews. Concerning
tithing, almost 40 years after Calvary, there is no legitimate reason to believe that Jewish Christians
had ever ceased paying tithes TO THEIR TEMPLE SYSTEM. In fact, history records that these Jewish Christians continued to observe
the law’s holy days, feasts, rituals and continued to honor the high priest. Galatians 4:10 reveals what they had taught that church. Therefore, it is also logical to assume
that they, as obedient Jews, also felt obligated to keep on paying tithes, not to the church, but to the Levitical system! Noted
church historian, Williston Walker, agrees, “The early Jerusalem company were faithful in attendance at the temple, and in obedience to the Jewish law, but, in addition, they
had their own special services among themselves, with prayer, mutual exhortation, and ‘breaking of bread’ daily
in private houses. This ‘breaking of bread’ served a twofold purpose. It was a bond of fellowship and a means
of support for the needy”.[1] Notice that he does not say, “for the support of the clergy” except as they were also among the very poorest. The Problem the Letter Must Solve It
was essential for the writer of Hebrews to convince the church in Jerusalem that their current earthly city of Jerusalem with
its temple, high priesthood, sacrifices and support structure were no longer a necessary part of God’s plan for the
church! They must immediately break away from their immature faith in, and mistaken dependence upon, the city of Jerusalem, the temple and the high priesthood. Otherwise, when all of these soon disappeared,
within a few years at most, their spiritual lives would suffer severe devastation. In
order to break this connection, the Jewish Christians must stop going to the temple for festivals, vows and sacrifices. They
must also immediately stop accepting the Levitical high priesthood as legitimate and stop paying tithes to support the system.
The careful wording of the letter of Hebrews was necessary because of the inaccurate theology of the Jewish Christians. Again,
since they still accepted the legitimacy of the Jewish temple and priesthood, they must have also continued to pay their law-commanded
tithes to it. Thus tithing plays an important part in the dismantling of the Jewish priesthood in Hebrews, chapter 7. How Christ’s High-Priesthood Solves the Problem Jesus
Christ is presented in the Letter to the Hebrews as the answer to all of their imminent problems. “In Christ”
the believer has a better country, a better city, a better sanctuary, a better high priesthood, a better priesthood,
better sacrifices and—consequently, a better financial support system! The better country, city and sanctuary are heavenly
for the church. The better high priest is Christ. The better priests are all believers (not pastor-teachers). The better sacrifices
from believers are those of praise and thanksgiving. The better financial system is grace giving motivated by love instead
of fear and law. Only by understanding these truths could the Jewish Christian survive the culture shock which occurred after
A.D. 70. Melchizedek Was the Key to Understanding the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ 7:1
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. “Historically”
speaking, Melchizedek was the “king of Salem”
(considered by most commentators to be Jerusalem) approximately
2000-1970 B.C. However, the writer of Hebrews uses Melchizedek “typically,” not “historically.” For
a detailed discussion of the historical Melchizedek, see the previous chapter of this book on Genesis 14. As
detailed in the Genesis 14 discussion, “the Most High God” (El Elyon and its Aramaic equivalent) was a common
non-Hebrew title for one of the “gods” who occupied the high places. The most important revelation of Genesis
14 is that the Canaanite concept of the “Most High God” was, in reality, the “LORD (Yahweh) the Most High
God.” Perhaps the writer of Hebrews was inspired to use the Gentile version of the title (rather than Abraham’s)
in order to strengthen the argument that God, and Christ’s royal high priesthood, are not exclusively Hebrew, which
required “Yahweh” as a qualifier. This difference is lost by many while discussing tithing from Genesis 14. 7:2
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. After
rescuing Lot and recovering the goods stolen from the region around Sodom, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils of war (also verse 5). “First
of all,” Melchizedek’s historical
identity was “being by interpretation” only, but not in reality. In Hebrew, “melchi” means “king,”
“zedek,” means “righteousness,” and “salem,” evolved to mean “peace.” Therefore Melchizedek was, typically, by interpreting his name,
the “King of Righteousness” and also the “King of Peace.” Both of these titles are appropriate for
the Messiah in the Old Testament. Historically
speaking, though, Melchizedek was not actually “the” King of Righteousness or “the” King of Peace
(that is, Christ); he was only that person “typically,” “by interpretation.” The article “the”
before the titles is absent in the Greek. Abraham
gave a tenth “of all” to Melchizedek. Verse 4 limits this to the “spoils of war.” Actually,
according to Genesis 14, Abraham kept absolutely nothing from these spoils of war. Except for what his personal army had consumed,
the rest was freely returned to its owners in Sodom and Gomorrah through the king of Sodom. God had blessed Abraham so that he required nothing else. Neither did he want to give the king of Sodom an opportunity to brag that he had made Abraham rich. 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like to the Son
of God, abides a priest continually [perpetually]. Melchizedek
was “without father, without mother, without descent.” Historically, these facts disqualified him as a
Hebrew priest. Also, in the ancient world, this term could merely mean the parents were “obscure,” “of no
importance,” or even “slaves.” To an Israelite, one who applied to serve as a priest and had Gentile parents
or wife was considered to be “without father, and without mother.” Both Ezra 2:61-62 and Nehemiah 7:63-64 record
that some claiming to be priests were not “reckoned by genealogy” because they had become “polluted”
and were “put from the priesthood.” No records identify Melchizedek’s father, his mother, or any ancestors.
Because of this lack of genealogy, the Israelites would never have accepted the historical Melchizedek as either king or priest.
. “Having
neither beginning of days, nor end of life”
must be understood “typically,” but not literally. Why? Because Melchizedek was not Jesus Christ living in the
flesh before his virgin birth. Jesus DID have family trees in both his deity and humanity! As God, he always existed. As the
God-man, he often declared that the Father sent him. As the Son of David, his physical genealogy is recorded in Matthew and
Luke. There is no doubt concerning the descent, or genealogy, of Jesus Christ. Therefore, legally (through the law), Jesus
Christ would never have been accepted as high priest without Aaronic credentials. HOWEVER, “typically,”
these non-credentials of Melchizedek actually make him eternal, and not limited to death as was Aaron’s priesthood,
and spiritually superior to the law and its qualifications. “Made
like the Son of God.” The historical
Melchizedek was not THE Son of God, but was “made LIKE the Son of God.” His name, title, and lack of genealogy
all make him into a type of Christ—not his person! Christ is “after the order of,” “like” (v.
3), or “after the similitude” or ” of Melchizedek (v. 15). The Christ-event, not Melchizedek’s rule
as priest-king, is the time when God took on flesh and personally lived among his created beings. However, occasionally someone
will use the description from Hebrews 7:1-3 to teach that Melchizedek was actually Christ in a pre-incarnate form. Such a
claim destroys both the meaning of the incarnation of Christ and the necessity for Abraham’s calling. Unfortunately,
this discussion has confused, and angered, many who have read my first edition. However, I simply cannot back away from this
very important principle. We MUST realize the difference between the “historical” Melchizedek of Genesis
14, and the “typical” “prophetic” Melchizedek of Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7. “Out of Egypt I have called my Son” “historically” means “national
Israel,” but “typically” and “prophetically”
it means Jesus Christ (Hos. 11:1 cf. Matt. 2:15). “A
virgin shall be with child” “historically” referred to Isaiah’s wife and child, but “typically”
and “prophetically” it refers to Mary and Christ (compare Isa. 7:14-16 and Matt. 1:23). First, the “historical”
Melchizedek appeared in Genesis 14. Second, Melchizedek appeared “prophetically” when David mentioned him in Psalm
110 almost a thousand years later. And, third, Hebrews 7 uses him both “prophetically” and “typically.” This
is important! “Negative” features about Melchizedek are actually reversed to become “positive”
features of Christ in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5-7. Negatively, Melchizedek only worshiped the Gentile concept of a god called
“El Elyon, God Most High.” He did not know God as “Yahweh, the LORD,” the God of Abraham’s household.
Also negatively, his family record did not exist. Without a proven genealogy, he would never qualify later under the Old Covenant,
either as a Levitical priest, or as a legitimate king from one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The genealogies of Genesis do not link him to Abraham, Noah, nor anybody else! Psalm
110 and Hebrews use Melchizedek’s “negatives” as “positives.” Whereas, the LORD (Yahweh) was
the exclusive covenant God of Abraham and Old Covenant Israel, in the New Covenant, God expanded special knowledge of himself beyond national Israel. When God reached out as “God Most High” to all nations, Melchizedek’s
unrecorded family tree is used to illustrate that Christ was eternal, pre-existed his incarnation, and was superior to the
law. First Evidence That Melchizedek is Greater: Abraham Paid Tithes to Melchizedek 7:4
Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. The
first evidence that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and the Mosaic Law is that Abraham gave tithes to him. With “now consider” the author of Hebrews begins laying the groundwork for his crucial declaration
in verse 18 that the entire Levitical system of worship, including its high priesthood and tithing, has been “set aside,”
or “disannulled.” “Now consider” begins a presentation of four evidences which prove to the Hebrew
mind that Melchizedek’s priesthood replaced that of Aaron. This list of evidences is found in verses 4-10 and the conclusions
begin in verse 11. It
is important to note that the “tithe” is a vital part of every evidence used! Melchizedek was greater than the
Levitical priests because Abraham “gave a tenth of the choicest spoils” to him. While Abraham’s pre-law
tithe was the first mention of tithing before the law began, this chapter in Hebrews is the only mention of tithing
after the law ended at Calvary. In
Hebrews 7, tithing is merely used as a means of understanding Melchizedek, both before and after the Mosaic Law. As seen in
Genesis 14, Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek’s authority when he gave the expected tithe-tax of the spoils of war. Melchizedek’s
rule may have reached to Mamre and Hebron where Abraham lived. Since it is evident that no Mosaic Law
of tithing existed, Abraham was following long-established Semitic Canaanite custom recognized by most commentaries in their
discussion of Genesis 14:21. He was paying a mandatory tribute to his Semitic king. The First Key Verse Involving Tithing 7:5
And truly 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 brothers, though they come out of the loins of Abraham. This
is a crucial verse for understanding the remainder of the chapter, because the conclusions reached in 7:12 and 7:18 affect this foundational ordinance. “Sons
of Levi” reminds the readers that the
Levitical priests owed much of their existence and authority to their privilege of receiving tithes. The writer of Hebrews
first reminds his readers where the authority of the Levitical priesthood originated before he proves that Christ’s
authority is greater and replaces the former! “According
to the law” establishes the connection
between “tithing” and the Mosaic Law. Whereas, in Hebrews, neither the word “tithe” nor “law”
occurs before chapter 7, in this chapter “tithe” occurs 7 times (vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9), and “law”
occurs 7 times (vv. 5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 28). Tithing does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament after Calvary! A primary purpose of this chapter in Hebrews is to demonstrate the change of the legal system
which established the Levitical priesthood. As
already mentioned, both the first and last Scriptural occurrence of tithing involve Melchizedek! Therefore, in order to correctly
understand this chapter, one must observe the vital connection between tithing and the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. From the
context, the word “law,” first used in verse 5, definitely must, though not exclusively, refer to
tithing! “A
commandment” refers specifically to Numbers,
chapter 18. Those who study Numbers 18 in order to support New Covenant tithing are compelled to discard it and concentrate
on more obscure texts. However, one who takes the time to study Numbers 18 will soon discover why tithing is not suitable
for New Covenant believers. Since Numbers 18 actually contains the “commandment,” “ordinance” or “statute”
of tithing, it should be carefully studied by every serious Bible student with the goal of discovering exactly what the Bible
says. Even
in our own society, any law which creates a job position must first include the “provision,” that is, the source
of revenue for paying that person for services rendered. Therefore, the “provision” is the very heart, the foundation,
and the enabler of the person in the position being created by law. Again, Numbers 18 is the “chair,” or
“provision ordinance,” of the Mosaic Law which established the Levitical priesthood and all of its support, including
tithing. The connection explains why tithing is mentioned so often in Hebrews, chapter 7. This “ordinance” or
“statute” of tithing which provided sustenance for the Levites had abolished the centuries-old tradition which
had designated the male head of the household as the family priest. The tithing ordinance forced Israel to support the Levitical system through tithes and offerings. It also applied
a death penalty on anyone trying to “draw near” to worship God directly. Second Evidence That Melchizedek Is Greater: Melchizedek Received Tithes and Blessed Abraham 7:6
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7:7
And, without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better. The
second evidence that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and the Mosaic Law is that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham
and blessed Abraham. Using accepted Hebrew
logic, the writer of Hebrews states that, since the historical Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, such reception proves
that the typical Melchizedek (Christ) was greater than Abraham. Melchizedek
was greater than Abraham because Melchizedek blessed Abraham. Yet he was neither an Israelite, not a Levite, and was not descended
from Abraham (v. 6). The one bestowing the blessing is greater than the one being blessed. (That destroys the “Shem”
argument.” Third Evidence That Melchizedek Is Greater: Melchizedek Received Tithes and Is Eternal 7:8
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he received them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. The
third evidence that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham and the Mosaic Law is that Melchizedek received tithes while being
eternal, but Levites receive tithes and die.
Melchizedek was greater than Levi because Levi is mortal, while the typical Melchizedek is eternal and is still living. The
“mortal” men are those of the Levitical priesthood. Typically, Melchizedek was eternal and had no beginning. Whereas
the Genesis account says nothing about his lack of genealogy or eternal attributes, Psalm 110 “witnessed” that
he lives on. The Melchizedek of Psalm 110:4 is clearly the “Messiah.” Historically
speaking, whereas the Levitical priesthood received its authority to receive tithes from the Mosaic Law, Melchizedek received
tithes from his own inherent authority as a Canaanite priest-king. However, the author of Hebrews ignores the historical
“Canaanite priest-king” aspect and builds his argument on the fact that Melchizedek’s typical authority
was inherent and eternal. The focus is on the eternal-ness and superiority of Jesus Christ. Fourth Evidence That Melchizedek Is Greater: Levitical Priests Paid Tithes to Him 7:9
And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. 7:10
For he was still in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. The
fourth evidence that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and the Mosaic Law is that the Levitical priests, through Abraham,
paid tithes to Melchizedek. Levi’s
great-grandfather was Abraham. What Abraham did represented all of his promised seed, including Levi. This evidence is stronger
in the eastern mind-set of the Bible than in western society. Conclusions from Evidence Presented: Melchizedek’s Priesthood Replaced Levi’s Priesthood 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? “If
therefore” begins drawing conclusions
from the evidence presented in verses 4-10, which began with “now consider.” On the basis of the Levitical priesthood
Israel “received the law,” that is, all of the Mosaic
Law! Since this is a discussion of tithing, common sense teaches that “the law” must also include tithing. A compound
Greek noun-verb here means that the law was “legislated” and “enacted” through the priests. After
being initiated by God, the “legislated” law of tithing and other offerings provided for the very existence
of the Levitical priesthood, and, in turn, the Levitical priesthood gave the whole law to Israel. “If
therefore perfection were” (or could
have been achieved) through the Levitical priesthood implies that something was lacking. The problem was that nothing,
absolutely nothing, in the system of laws that established their priesthood, or that resulted from the ministry of their
priesthood, had been able to produce the perfection required by God! This included tithing! All the financial support in
the world cannot, and will not, produce a moral priesthood (or clergy). Therefore, there was need for another greater
priesthood. In
Acts 15:5-22, the apostles in Jerusalem, being Jewish Christians, had not required Paul to teach the
Gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law and tithing. However, due to a lack of spiritual insight, they still required themselves
and other Jewish Christians to continue observing all of the law. This error caused a multitude of problems which Paul faced
and tried to correct in his letters, especially Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Corinthians, chapter
3. This failure to understand the impact of the gospel on the Mosaic Law also caused the situation in the church that was
being addressed by this letter to the Hebrews. Since
all four “evidences” in verses 4-10 involved tithing, it is therefore logical to conclude that the “law”
being discussed in verse 11 must also include the law of tithing in Numbers 18. This is especially true since the first use
of both “law” and “commandment” in Hebrews refers to tithing. In verse 5, tithing was singled out
of the entire law because it best enabled the Levitical system to exist. The Levitical system, like human organizations, began
with the means to support it. “Order
of Melchizedek.” The writer of Hebrews
returns again to Psalm 110 to discuss the consequences of understanding and applying Christ’s Messianic high priesthood
to the order of Melchizedek (instead of to the order of the Levitical ordinance). The Second Key Text 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. “Being
changed” begins this Greek sentence for
emphasis. The Greek word, me-ta-ti-the-me-nees, is a present passive participle. It is a metamorphosis, a transposition,
a change from one to another (Strong’s 3346). As used in Scripture, it means a great change. The word describes
Jacob’s bones moving from Egypt
to Canaan (Acts 7:16),
the Galatians’ apostasy from the gospel (Gal. 1:6), Enoch’s translation (Heb. 11:5) and apostates (Jude 4). The
following verses make it clear that this great “change” in the priesthood was its total abolishment and replacement. “There
is made of necessity” (comments at verse
18). “A
change also of the law.” This is an interesting
phrase because the Greek omits the article “the.” While most versions insert the article, the New American Standard
omits it. Although the Greek article appears with “law” in verses 5, 11, 19, and 28, it is missing in verses 12
and 16. Since the Mosaic Law does not govern both sides of the “change,” it is probably best to omit the
article and let the word “law” refer to a “principle.” Context leads to the conclusion that the “principle”
being changed “from” is the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, the “principle” being changed
“to” is an eternal one which is not governed by any set of laws. The following texts further clarify this
principle. The
instant that Christ died, “the [Levitical] priesthood” was changed by being abolished. The veil in the temple
was ripped open and the Passover lamb’s blood was replaced by Christ’s blood. The result changed the history of
the world! The high priesthood of Aaron was replaced by the Melchizedek high priesthood of Jesus Christ and the regular priesthood
of the other priests was replaced by the New Covenant doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers.” (See 1 Pet.
2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9.) Exactly
what was “changed”?—the law, or ordinance, which had established the Levitical priesthood—especially
the primary law of tithing! Neither the change in the high priesthood nor the change in the regular priesthood were taught
in the Mosaic Law. The ” or “principle” which now establishes the office of Jesus Christ (and also believer-priests)
is not derived from any kind of written law whatsoever, and this includes tithing! Instead, the principles of grace and faith
are linked to the eternal nature of God which supersedes the law. Any
change in the priesthood itself would make necessary changes in all the laws governing and supporting the priesthood,
especially tithing. 7:13
For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 7:14
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah—of which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priesthood. In
the phrase, “For he of whom these things are spoken,” the writer of Hebrews begins pulling all of the evidences
and conclusions together into the person of Jesus Christ. This “change of the law” was not minor, but catastrophic
to the entire Levitical system! Jesus was from the tribe of Judah which was forbidden by the law to officiate as priests. Finally,
the author makes it clear that he was speaking about Jesus Christ, and NOT
the historical Melchizedek. “Moses
spoke nothing” about a change of the
priesthood from Levi to another tribe. Whereas large portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy describe Levi’s
financial support structure, authority, and duties, absolutely nothing is said in the law about how a priesthood from
Judah should be financially supported and serve! The reasons are,
first, Christ’s priesthood is completely new and beyond the law. Second, tithing is not required to support a “priesthood
of every believer.” And, third, the New Covenant structure of pastor-teachers, evangelists, and deacons is foreign to
the Old Covenant system. Therefore, by logic and extension concerning tithing, neither can anything in the law be legitimately
used to dictate how the New Covenant structure should operate! The idea of grace-giving is even superior to the basic Old
Covenant idea of free-will offerings. The
key to Hebrews 7 is found in verses 13 and 14. NOTHING said from Hebrews 7:1-12 about Melchizedek referred to the “historical”
person, but ALL referred to the “typical” or “prophetic” Jesus Christ! When you try to make it apply
literally to the historical Melchizedek, it simply does not make sense at all—for example, Levi’s tithe to a Canaanite
priest. The
texts are not attempting to argue the validity (nor non-validity) of Abraham’s tithe. Instead, they are setting the
stage for the necessity of tithing’s abolition as part of the total support system of the Levitical priesthood in verse
18. The
“historical” Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was NEGATIVE FOR ISRAEL: (1) Melchizedek received tithes because of a long-standing
spoils of war Semitic Canaanite law. (2) Melchizedek received tithes because he was the governing
priest-king of Abraham and the region he traveled through. , (3) Melchizedek worshiped El Elyon, the very common title
for pagan Baal. Israel did not worship God using this name until 1000 years later—after
King David captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites, (4) Melchizedek worshiped Salem (Shalim), goddess of the dawn, and Zedek (Tsadeq) (Jupiter) god of justice—two
very common lower gods in the Canaanite pantheon (research under ‘Phoenician gods’), (5) Melchizedek honored El Elyon as the “god of
the nations” known to Gentiles; Melchizedek did not know God as YAHWEH, Abraham’s covenant God (Deut. 32:8). (6) Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy to prove that
he was an Israelite or Levitical priest, therefore, he was not qualified to be a priest, (7) Melchizedek had no recorded birth or death, therefore,
had no legal proof that he could be the father of a priest in Israel (1) Jesus received tithes as proof that he was greater
than Abraham; [Since Jesus was also the seed of Abraham, does that prove that Melchizedek was greater than Jesus? Of course
not!] (2) Jesus received tithes because he was “like”
the Son of God, “typical”, (3) Jesus, who was Israel’s YAHWEH, re-interpreted Melchizedek’s Canaanite title to become
the title for the true God Most High, (4) Jesus is the true God of Peace whom Melchizedek thought
that he worshiped; Jesus is the true God of Righteousness whom Melchizedek thought that he worshiped (5) Jesus’ New Covenant transcends Israel’s Old Covenant and reveals the true God as “God of the Nations,”
“Most High God,” and this Semitic Canaanite NEGATIVE of Melchizedek becomes a POSITIVE for Jesus, (6) Like the historical Melchizedek Jesus, on his God-side,
had no recorded parents because he was Eternal God; however, unlike the historical Melchizedek, Jesus on his human-side, both
his mother’s and his father’s genealogical record is in the Bible, (7) Jesus, on his God-side is Eternal; however, unlike
the historical Melchizedek the Bible records both a birth and a death for him. (1) The nature of Abraham’s the tithe was only pre
Mosaic Law; it was not pre-Canaanite law. It is easy to prove that non-Israelites all around the Semitic world gave spoils
of war tithes long before the Mosaic Law existed. (2) Therefore, the very common declaration that Abram
gave it “voluntarily” is unbiblical—it is not stated in the Bible. (3) The percentage of Abraham’s spoils of war tithe
is not from the Mosaic Law. Numbers 31:21, 26-29 described an ordinance from the Law which limits the spoils of war tithe
to only one 1000th (.1%) instead of one tenth (10%). (4) Whereas, the “historical” is only such
“by interpretation,” the “typical” is such in reality. (5) Whereas, the historical Abraham returned 90% to the
King of Sodom, the typical, Jesus, would never consider such action. (6) Whereas, the historical Melchizedek was only “made
like the Son of God,” the typical, Jesus, WAS the Son of God. (7) Concerning Levi’s tithe to Melchizedek: First,
even if Melchizedek were a true priest of Yahweh, Levi would normally give a true tithe of only 1%, that is, one tenth of
one tenth, to the priests; therefore his gift is only typical. Second, according to Numbers 31, Levi’s spoils of war
tithe to the Aaronic priests would only be .1%, that is, one part in a thousand; therefore, his tithe through Abraham is,
again, typical. (8) Since Hebrews 7:13-14 excludes the historical Melchizedek,
then Levi never did pay tithes through Abraham to the “historical” Melchizedek! He paid them to the “typical”
Melchizedek, Jesus Christ. It is wrong to use Hebrews 7’s description of the typical Melchizedek in order to change
the literal meaning of Genesis 14. Hebrews 7:13, “For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe,
of which no man gave attendance at the altar,” cannot possibly “literally” change Genesis 14 because
Hebrews 7:14 says Jesus came out of Judah (which is not true of the historical Melchizedek). (9) The typical Levi paid tithes to the typical Melchizedek,
that is, Jesus Christ—every time he forwarded his tenth of the tithe to the priests. This is because Jesus is the true
High Priest of all believers with no genealogy because he is eternal. I have
pointed out that the word, tithe, could refer to, first, 1/10, or 10%, of pagan spoils from Sodom and Gomorrah; second,
Law spoils-of-war ordinance of 1/1000th (.1%), or, third, 1/10th of 10%, 1%, which Levi was required to give to the Aaronic
priests. Therefore, the amount of the tithe is irrelevant in the discussion of Hebrews 7. 7:15
And it is yet far more evident [that], when another priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedec, 7:16
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal [physical] commandment, but after the power of an endless [indestructible] life. While
it was “evident” that Moses spoke nothing in the law about a priest from Judah, it “is yet far more evident” that Moses in the law spoke nothing
about a priest after the likeness of Melchizedek, who was (can you believe) a Gentile! While it would be difficult enough
trying to explain financially supporting an Israelite priesthood from Judah from the Mosaic Law, it would be impossible trying to explain supporting a Gentile priesthood
with roots outside of the heritage of Israel, for instance, that of Melchizedek. This serious problem can be solved only by doing away with the entire Mosaic
Law, or, at the very least, that part of the law relating to the establishment of the priesthood. “Not
after the law of a carnal [physical] commandment” must, in its context, include the commandment of tithing mentioned in verse 5. This adds to the statement that
“Moses spoke nothing concerning [the] priesthood” beyond Levi, and especially not beyond Israel itself. The author of Hebrews has now taken the reader outside of the
boundaries of the Mosaic Law for an answer to the legitimacy of Christ’s high priesthood! Clearly, Christ’s
priesthood, the priesthood of believers, and the ministry of pastor-teachers and other church workers are NOT governed by
instructions in the Mosaic Law! “But
after the power of an endless [indestructible] life.”
What a statement! The “commandment,” “law,” or (better) “principle,” that authorizes and
makes Christ’s priesthood work, comes from his divine eternal character which preceded the law. This remark is drawn
from Psalm 110:4’s statement about Melchizedek being a priest “forever.” Because of this, he cannot fail!
Because of this, we, as priest-believers cannot fail! The church will be victorious! Again,
in its basic context, this primarily refers to “the priest’s office [which has] commandment in the law to collect
a tenth,” from verse 5 (which refers back to Numbers 18:19-28)! By extension, however, it applies to every aspect of the Levitical system, including dress code, ritual anointing,
how to offer sacrifices, etc. Whereas Levi had the ordinance of Numbers 18 from the law establishing his priesthood and support
by tithing and other sacrifices, Christ’s greater priesthood needs neither! Christ has the power, the authority of God! Grace
principles of support, motivated by love for God, out-give legalistic forced principles of support such as tithing. Christ
is the high priest of the church, which means every believer. Now every believer is personally a priest—not giving tithes
to other priests, but, as priests themselves, offering sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Christ is the head and the priesthood
of believers is his body, this means his “power” flows into us and becomes our power. Therefore, the church does
not need to use the weak Mosaic Law-power of tithing to further its goals; it has the eternal “indestructible”
life-power of grace and faith from Jesus Christ! 7:17
For he testifies, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. Psalm
110:4, again quoted here, is the key point of the entire book of Hebrews. It is directly quoted, or referred to, five (5)
times in chapter 7 alone, and eight (8) times in Hebrews (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 20, 21, 28). The Most Important Text 7:18
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside [disannulling: KJV] of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
[unprofitableness: KJV]. NAS “On
the one hand” (Greek: men…de…construction)
God removed something that had been around since the time of Moses. He removed the ordinances of the Levitical system in order
to establish the greater eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. “There
is a setting aside a former commandment.” The
context of this chapter can only point to Numbers, chapter 18, as the “former commandment” being discussed
and first mentioned in verse 5! The conclusive statement of this verse is the key statement of this chapter. Whether or not
one cherishes his/her own understanding of tithing is totally irrelevant. What does the Scripture say? What does this verse
mean in its context? These questions must be answered honestly. If tithing is indeed included in this verse, then the New
Covenant Christian must deal with such conclusion in an honest manner. Again,
Numbers 18 is “the” “commandment in the law” from 7:5 which established the support structure and
described the broad duties of the Levitical priesthood. Numbers 18 is the basic statute/ordinance which details the fundamental
use of the first tithe by both the Levites who served in the tabernacle and the priests who offered sacrifices before the
altar. As mentioned in the discussion of verse 5, the first use of both “law” and “commandment” in
the book of Hebrews are both in the context of tithing. It
is totally illogical to teach that 7:18 abolished every ordinance pertaining to the Levitical priesthood except tithing! In reality, by first abolishing tithing (its chief financial support)
the priesthood would end. The domino effect from abolishing tithing knocks down every other authority and function of Levitical
priests. This is exactly why tithing has such an important role in Hebrews 7. Comments from Noted Biblical Scholars on Hebrews 7 Consider
what some well-known Bible commentators and teachers say about the results of Hebrews 7:5; 7:12 and 7:18. They agree that Christ
abolished the entire system, structure, or apparatus, of the Levitical priesthood, that is, everything remotely connected
to it! After reading this chapter and the conclusions below, it is difficult to understand how any logical person, determined
to preach God’s truth for the New Covenant church, can still say that tithing is a New Covenant doctrine! William Barclay: The
law of tithes is laid down in Numbers 18:20-21. There Aaron is told that the Levites will have no actual territory in the
promised land laid down for them but that they are to receive a tenth part of everything for their service…. From beginning
to end the Jewish priesthood was dependent on physical things…. The whole paraphernalia of the ceremonial law
was wiped out in the priesthood of Jesus.[2] Albert Barnes: But
the meaning is, that since a large number of laws—constituting a code of considerable extent and importance—was
given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend,
it followed that when their office was superseded by “one of a wholly different order,” the law which had
regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding.[3] Adam Clarke: There
is a total abrogation, of the former law, relative to the Levitical priesthood.[4] Louis H. Evans Jr.: The
sacrifices were to be provided for by the people by means of tithes brought to the priests. An interesting comparison is implied
between the Levites and the Son. Whereas the dependency of Levites is upon the obedient tithe-giving of the Israelites,
the Son is dependent upon no human resource. This is one more factor of superiority of the Son over the Levitical
priests.[5] Matthew Henry: Changing
the Levitical priesthood also means changing the whole economy with it. There being so near a relation between the
priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under
a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.[6] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: These
presuppose a transference of the priesthood; this carries with it a change also of the law which is inseparably bound
up with the priesthood: both stand and fall together. And, as the Levitical priesthood and the law are inseparable,
a repealing of the law also.[7] A. M. Stibbs: Also,
the priesthood was so fundamental to the Old Covenant between God and His people (the whole relationship was constituted in
dependence upon its ministry), that any change in the order of priesthood must of necessity imply and involve a change
in the whole constitution; i.e. it implies nothing less than an accompanying new, and indeed better, covenant.[8] “Because
of its weakness and uselessness” (Greek:
asthenes kai anootheles). The Bible clearly states that all of the laws concerning the Levitical priesthood (including
tithing) had proven to be “without strength and without profit, or advantage.” While the NAS and RSV read “because
of its weakness and uselessness,” the NIV says “because it was weak and useless,” and the TLB paraphrases
“because it didn’t work.” (For other texts using this word for “profit,” see 1 Cor. 15:32; 1
Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 3:16; Tit. 3:8; 5:9; Jas. 2:14, 16.) Simply
stated, the laws which established the Levitical priesthood and detailed its functions, including tithing, did not accomplish
the spiritual maturity which God had intended them to provide. Yet it is strange how many fundamental conservative Christians
set aside the first 27 chapters and 29 verses of Leviticus as being Old Covenant, but keep the last five verses on tithing
(27:30-34) as applicable to the New Covenant church. It is as if the last few verses do not exist within the context of the
last chapter and the entire book of Leviticus. As one reads all of Leviticus, chapter 27, in context, everything said about
tithing is also said about the other items in chapter 27 which New Covenant Christians almost always set aside. It
is also strange how so many theologians can agree that Hebrews 7:18 refers to all of the ordinances relating to the
Levitical priesthood, and then resurrect tithing as a “strong,” “profitable,” and “necessary”
New Covenant doctrine. Tithing Had Become a Powerless and Profitless Doctrine One: Tithing, along with
all of the other Levitical ordinances, had failed to produce the spiritual perfection and maturity within believers which
God required (7:11, 19; 9:9, 11; 10:1). Two: Since the Levitical
ordinances (including tithing) had proven weak and unprofitable, there was an inherent need of a New Covenant (7:19, 22;
8:7-13; 10:1-9). Three: Old Covenant tithing
was not motivated by grace, love, or the burden for lost souls. Under the Mosaic Law, it did not matter whether one paid tithes
out of sincere desire, paid grudgingly, or paid without being cheerful. One must pay, regardless of attitude or the condition
of the heart. Four: “You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods”
(Exod. 23:32; also Deuteronomy 7:2). Tithing was never
used for evangelism. As a matter of biblical truth, national Israel was commanded NOT to share
its covenant with any other nation; the covenant was their distinction which set them apart (Num. 18:19-21; Lev. 27:34;
Mal. 3:6-9). Even today Jews do not deliberately evangelize or attempt to convert others. Five: Tithes limited the
priesthood. Only one part of one family in one tribe could “draw near” into the presence of God—Aaron’s
house. Levites and priests were not encouraged to establish independent outposts for evangelism of other nations. Today, too
many churches totally ignore the clear implication of verse 18. In practice, they replace the tithe-receiving aspect of the
Levitical priesthood, not with the priesthood of believers, but with tithe-receiving pastor-teachers. Too many ignore New
Covenant giving principles of grace and insist that pastors be paid a tithe according to the commandment of the Mosaic
Law. The pastors then keep more than ten percent of the total tithe, and also own and inherit property—all contrary
to the law itself. In doing so, both churches and pastors “set aside” better giving principles of grace, based
on God’s “indestructible power,” and return to the “weak” and “unprofitable” principles
of tithing. Six: Tithing too often receives
a greater priority than evangelism. I have personally known pastors who preach on tithing at least monthly, yet the members
do not have a burden for souls, are not trained in soul-winning, and the churches are weak, dying, or dead. Preaching tithing
is not the Scriptural ingredient that guarantees successful church growth! Seven: The New Testament
clearly shows that tithing, along with circumcision, Sabbath-keeping and adherence to food laws became useless marks of boastful
self-righteousness among the legalistic Pharisees and scribes. Eight: It is not by accident
that the only three uses of the words “tithe” and “tithes” recorded in the Gospels record the hypocrisy
and failure of legalistic Jews who boasted of their tithing achievements. Jesus actually cursed tithe-payers for their hypocrisy. Nine: Even in the church,
tithing does more harm than good. First, church leaders tend to be wealthier tithe-payers, while better spiritual leaders
who cannot give as much because of family sickness and other legitimate losses are left out of leadership roles. The
Bible does not teach that the financially competent are also the best spiritual leaders. Neither does the Bible teach
that an inability to give disqualifies one from a church office. There is no justification in adding to the Bible a requirement
that church officers are required to give ten percent of their income. Excluding the financially less-fortunate deprives the
church of their God-given gifts and competent leadership abilities. The resulting unbalanced leadership is spiritually weak. Ten: Also, tithing is more
harmful than good in the church when its abuse of tithing negatively affects the public reputation of the church. Frankly,
the legalistic strict preaching of tithing has given many churches a bad reputation and a weak witness. Eleven: The most important
reason that tithing does more harm than good relates to the gospel. Teaching tithing to meet financial needs actually
robs the church of God’s blessing available if it had used the Spirit-approved New Covenant principles. Those pastors and churches
that teach tithing will never experience the greater success they will enjoy from God’s hand when they replace tithing
sermons with sermons about soul-winning. The success of the New Covenant church proves that the first century poor, women,
children and slaves were motivated by the desire to see souls won to the Lord. Their giving was motivated by love, not Law. Twelve: Great evangelistic
movements, great revivals and great growing churches (whether tithe-teachers or not) occur only when church members are burdened
for the lost. The power is in gospel principles, not in principles of the law. Sincere believers, burdened for lost souls,
will give out of a love response for the lost without recourse to any legal prodding. Churches that are not growing are churches
without a burden for the lost. Thirteen: Since tithing is
included within the scope of Hebrews 7:18, one must conclude that teaching tithing is equivalent to teaching a spiritually
“weak” and “useless,” or “unprofitable” doctrine. 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near to God. 7:25
Therefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come to [draw near: NAS] God by him, seeing he ever lives to
make intercession for them. “The
law made nothing perfect.” It is clear
that neither a perfect sacrifice, nor a perfect fellowship, nor a perfect system of giving were accomplished under the terms
of the Mosaic Law, or Old Covenant. “But,
on the other hand,” concluding the thought
introduced in verse 18, God replaced the old with the better; he took away all weak unprofitable legalistic principles and
replaced them with better principles of grace. Accepting the truth of Christ’s high priesthood brings in a “better
hope” than tithing and the Levitical priesthood could ever bring in. That “better hope” is the person of
Jesus Christ (6:19; 9:24). If
and when the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem realized this fact, they could look beyond the physical temple
to Christ. They could finally be free from, and forget, the Levitical priesthood and its ordinances. The author of Hebrews
was trying to stop his readers from supporting and depending on the temple services. They must stop Old Covenant homage, sacrifices,
and tithes and offerings to that system. They must accept their own priesthood as believers, and accept Jesus Christ as high
priest. That was the key to success. Sadly, however, history records that they never accepted the truth and eventually self-destructed. “Draw
near” (also 7:25) is another direct reference
to the original tithing law in Numbers 18 which uses similar terminology four times (vv. 3, 4, 7 and 22). The Hebrew term
(Strong’s O.T. 7126) is common and can mean “approach, come near, draw near, or present as offering.” The
abolishment of the Levitical priesthood, with its prohibitions about “drawing near” to God, opened the way again
to the priesthood of every believer. Before Calvary, only Levitical priests could “draw near” to God;
the penalty for disobedience was death! Now each believer-priest “comes boldly to the throne of grace” (4:16). We “draw near” because of our “better hope.” God saves
us forever because we “draw near” as believer-priests (7:25). We draw near, not with a tithe and a real sacrificial lamb, but with the blood of Jesus Christ and a committed
and victorious lifestyle. Through Christ’s blood we “draw near” in full assurance of faith, having a clean
conscience (10:22). 7:20
And inasmuch as, not without an oath, he was made priest. 7:21
(For those priests were made without an oath, but this with an oath by him that said to him, The Lord swore and will not repent,
You are a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec). 7:28 For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity, but the
word of the oath, which was since the law, makes the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. The
“oath” refers back to the discussion of 6:13-20.
Christ’s priesthood will succeed because God is able to perform his oath and fulfill his needs. And, since Christ is
the high priest of the church, and its members are priest-believers, then the church is assured of its success. Therefore,
the church is not dependent on any “commandment in the law” (tithing or otherwise) to assure its continued success.
Success was assured by the oath of God the Father to God the Son! What a marvelous thought! Preaching Christ has produced
many successful churches, schools, and ministries which do not find it necessary to teach tithing. They have found better
principles of grace. “The
Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (NAS)
is from Psalm 110:4 yet another time. However, for the first time, the first part of the text is included, and the last part
is omitted. This emphasizes that God has no intention of ever going back to the ordinances of the Levitical priesthood or
any part of them for success. His promises to Christ are forever. 7:22
By so much was Jesus made a guarantee of a better testament. Concerning
Melchizedek, the detailed discussion now concludes. After chapters 5, 6 and 7 neither he (nor tithing) are mentioned again
in God’s Word. The post-Calvary discussion of both Melchizedek and tithing both begins and ends in the book of Hebrews. The
point has been made and proven with Scripture and deductive reasoning from Scripture. Since the Levitical priesthood was limited,
weak, and mortal, it could not possibly bring in perfection concerning sin and salvation. Therefore, it was “fitting,”
or “perfectly suited,” that Jesus, the Melchizedek-high priest, prophesied in Psalm 110, would of necessity replace
it and laws governing it (including tithing). That is the only way he could “bring in” the perfection of salvation
that the law could not do. Summary: One: Tithing is inseparable
from “the commandment in the law” that provided for, appointed, and set apart the Levitical priesthood (7:5). Two: Tithing is used in each
of four evidences to prove that Christ’s priesthood is superior to that of the Mosaic Law (7:4-10). Three: The Old Covenant methods
of worshiping God through tithes, offerings, sacrifices and Levitical priests failed (7:11). Four: Failure of the old
system implied a need for a totally new system of service and worship (7:11). Five: The change of priesthood
must also bring in entirely new principles of service and worship (7:12). Six: Since Christ came from
Judah, it is evident that nothing in the law that related to the Levitical priesthood (including
tithing) could be carried over to the new priesthood of Christ (7:13-14). Seven: Psalm 110 patterned
the new priesthood after a non-Jewish Melchizedek. This fact makes it far more evident that nothing in the law regarding the
Levitical priesthood (including tithing) should be carried over to the priesthood of Christ (7:15). Eight: Therefore one must
conclude that Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood is not governed by any set of laws given to men. His priesthood is governed
by the power of Eternal God (7:16-17). Nine: The old commandment
which financed, established and described the Levitical priesthood’s duties has been set aside. It was inherently weak
and unprofitable (7:18). Ten: Man can become spiritually
perfect only through applying the principles of the better hope (7:19). Eleven: Since the Levitical
priesthood has been replaced by the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers, this means that all believers,
as priests who do not require tithes, can draw near to God in worship (7:19). Twelve: The success of Christ’s
priesthood and his church is as sure as God’s oath to him (7:20-27). [1] Williston Walker, A History of the Christian
Church, 3rd ed., (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1970), 22. [2] William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series:
The Letter to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), s.v. “Heb. 7:5-19.” [3] Barnes, s.v. “Heb. 7:12-18.” [4] Clarke’s, s.v. “Heb. 7:18.” [5] Louis H. Evans, Jr., The Communicator’s
Commentary: Hebrews (Waco: Word, 1985), s.v. “Heb. 7:18.” [6] Henry, s.v. “Heb. 7:18.” [7] Jamieson, s.v. “Heb. 7:18.” [8] New Bible Comm., s.v. “Heb. 7:18.” [9] Thayer’s, s.v. “atheteesis.” Owen: 1.
If this latter be intended, it is with me past all doubt and question that a bountiful part of our enjoyments is to
be separated unto the use and service of the worship of God, particularly unto the comfortable and honorable supportment of
them that labor in the ministry. Kelly:
Owen has no quarrel with the (3rd above) definition of tithes as merely another word for freewill offerings. This
will be his final observation XXIV that only freewill giving is for the Church today. ……………………………. Owen: 2.
If the strict legal course of tithing be intended [as a definition], it cannot be proved from this text [Hebrews
7] nor from any other instance before the law. |