This appears to be a strong argument at first. But there are deep flaws in this overall outlook on Scripture. I will start there, and I think you will quickly see the problem…
In a previous article, I began an introduction to a series of articles refuting popular objections to the the mandatory tithe. That article explains why Christians, pastors, and theologians can often so strongly oppose the mandatory tithe.
In this article, I address an objection that can be summarized like this: “Jesus didn’t repeat the tithe law in the New Testament, so it is no longer binding.”
Before I proceed, I want to mention one concept to you, and I want you to keep it in your mind as you continue reading. I’ll return to it shortly. The concept is: bestiality.
MOSES OR CHRIST?
The author of the article I’m focusing on summarizes his first objection to the obligatory tithe:
1 – Believers are no longer under the Mosaic covenant (Rom. 6:14–15; 7:5–6; Gal. 3:15–4:7; 2 Cor. 3:4–18).
The commands stipulated in the Mosaic covenant are no longer in force for believers. Some appeal to the division between the civil, ceremonial, and moral law to support tithing. Yet these divisions, I would observe, are not the basis Paul uses when addressing how the law applies to us today. And even if we use these distinctions, tithing is clearly not part of the moral law. It’s true the moral norms of the Old Testament are still in force today, and we discern them from the law of Christ in the New Testament, but tithing is not among these commands.
This first objection is common among many evangelical Christians. It is some variant of “We’re under grace, not law!”
As noted in the previous article, Paul’s arguments are meant to explain that we are no longer under the condemnation of God’s law. God will not sentence us to eternal death because we violated it. Rather, we have been set free through the unmerited gift of salvation God has granted us through faith in Jesus Christ. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Galatians 3:13).
The law, as the Psalmist wrote, becomes a lamp unto our feet (Psalm 119:105). We are called to be conformed to the image of Christ, which means ethically conformed. Therefore, we should imitate Jesus and do the good works God prepared for us before the foundation of the world.
We walk in God’s commandments. This becomes our expression of love and gratitude for God’s grace and mercy. “Because of this we know that we love God’s children, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is love for God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3).
RESISTING GOD’S COMMANDMENTS
The outlook expressed by this objection is not new. An old issue of the Dispensationalism in Transition newsletter (1990) summarizes the outlook by gathering numerous relevant quotations together in one convenient place.
Alva McClain asserts that “the Word of God declares plainly that the Christian believer is not ‘under the law’. . . . [T]he legalistic theology of our day affirms that the law is still in force over the Christian believer! What utter nonsense!’”
…
The New Scofield Reference Bible comments that “crucifixion with Christ sets the believer free from the law.” “The believer is both dead to the law and redeemed from it, so that he is ‘not under the law, but under grace’ (Rem. 6:14). . . .”
…
Charles Ryrie comments: “Peter described the Law as an unbearable yoke. . . . In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul even specifies that the part of the Law which was written on stones (the Ten Commandments) was done away. . . . All the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has.”
…
Varren Wiersbe: “With the death and resurrection of Christ, the Law was done away. . . . The Law has performed its purpose: the Saviour has come and the ‘guardian’ is no longer needed.”
The author of that newsletter explains that this way of thinking created a certain way of interpreting Scripture: “If an Old Testament Law is not repeated in the New Testament, it is not obligatory for the Christian.” He then quotes Ryrie again:
“Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense, but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; the same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding.”
“The law of Christ” is a code phrase for the idea that all Old Testament laws are abolished unless Christ repeated them in the New Testament.
THE BESTIALITY HERMENEUTIC
This objection can be answered by asking in reply, “What about Leviticus 18:23?” That verse says: “Do not sleep with any animal and defile yourself with it. No woman must consider sleeping with any animal. This would be perversion.”
This commandment was a part of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus never mentioned bestiality in the New Testament. There is no reference at all to sleeping with any animal. The command is not repeated in the New Testament. So how do we discern this “moral norm” from the “law of Christ” in the New Testament if He never mentioned it? To be consistent, the author would have to admit that bestiality is now acceptable, according to the Bible.
I refer to this as the bestiality hermeneutic: Jesus did not condemn bestiality, nor did He call for the execution of the human and the beast, as the Old Covenant did, so we are today left free to decided whether or not to pass laws against it. And what about marrying your sister?
Dr. Gary North, Westminster’s Confession, page 211.
In that same issue of Dispensationalism in Transition, the author repeated a story that is almost too incredible to be true. A Christian theologian was confronted with this quandry, and his response was unbelievable:
Professor X (I shall call him) was asked by Chilton whether we as Christians are in any sense under the Mosaic Law in the New Testament age. Professor X responded, “No.”
Chilton then inquired, “But the New Testament quotes the Old Testament often, thus assuming its validity. How are we to account for that?” Professor X replied, “Okay, what I mean is that the Law is not valid unless repeated in the New Testament.”
Chilton replied, “What of a pastor who is involved in bestiality? Does his church have biblical grounds to dismiss him as pastor?” Then the chicken roosted so hard as to evolve by punctuated equilibrium into a rooster! Professor X answered, “No. The church would have no grounds to remove him.” Chilton asked him if he really meant it. Professor X insisted that that was his position, because the NT does not condemn bestiality.
At this point, I hope it has become obvious to you, as a critical thinker, that simply wiping away all of the Mosaic law with a broad brush is a flawed procedure.
A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
Another problem with this objection is that the author doesn’t prove that the tithe originated with, and was exclusive to, the Mosaic covenant. If it were, and if he could prove that every aspect of that covenant has been permanently abolished (again, think bestiality), then he would have a strong case.
Here, he runs into some trouble. The tithe precedes the Mosaic covenant. It is true that the tithe took on a different form in Mosaic Israel, but this is how God’s law and commandments work: they are universal principles that are applied differently to specific applications. The tithe came into existence before the Mosaic covenant, which was delivered to the Israelites by Moses in the wilderness. So even if every aspect of the Mosaic covenant passed away, you must still explain why a principle that existed before that covenant also passed away along with it.
The author doesn’t do that, and I’m not going to help his case by doing it for him. I’m just going to assume that he couldn’t make the case–or at least, that he couldn’t make it in a concise way that is easily understood by regular people. I also assume that is why he abandons this first objection just as quickly as he moves onto his second objection.
CONCLUSION
It is true that certain Old Covenant laws are no longer binding. One of the most obvious is the set of rules governing animal sacrifices. This is because Jesus Christ made the final sacrifice. This is the argument made by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews:
“For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the real forms of those things themselves. Those who approach God can never be made perfect by the same sacrifices that the priests continually bring year after year. Otherwise, would the sacrifices not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed one time and would no longer have any consciousness of sin. But with those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4).
When Christ laid down His life, he ended the old sacrifices:
“By that will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his service to God. He offers the same sacrifices again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when Christ offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. He is waiting until his enemies are made a stool for his feet. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (vs. 10-14).
When Jesus became High Priest, he replaced the Levitical priesthood with that of Melchizedek. The consequence of this tremendous action was a change in the law: “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed” (Hebrews 7:12).
It’s not sufficient to assume the entire Mosaic covenant has passed away. There are biblical reasons for the changes in how the covenants are administered. The priestly laws, which encompass the sacrifices and temple system, changed because the high priest changed. Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi. He is from Judah. The Levitical priesthood was exclusively priestly in nature. But Jesus’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is both priestly and kingly. So naturally some things have changed.
But one thing that hasn’t changed is the tithe. Even the Levitical high priests tithed to Melchizedek representatively through Abraham. That’s because the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to that of Levi. So, the tithe remains in force today.
If anything, we can say that now, with Jesus as our high priest, the tithe has “gotten back to the basics.” In a sense, we now come just as close as did Abraham. We give our tithes to the royal priesthood directly, where as the Israelites did not have this honor.