THE PRE-MOSAIC TITHE:
ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS
Mark A. Snoeberger*
In
Leviticus 27 the Mosaic Law expressly commands the practice of
tithing,
codifying it for all
and
economic obligation for the advancement of the nation. This
codification,
however, was by no means the birth of the tithe, but a new
expression
of the ancient Near Eastern tithe infused with theological sig-
nificance for the new
political entity of
The payment of tithes was no novel
practice, having been performed
for
centuries by both biblical figures and pagans alike. It is well attested
that
the tithe2 was present in the very earliest of cultures_-Roman,
Greek,
Carthaginian, Cretan, Silician, Phoenician, Chinese,
Babylonian,
Akkadian, and Egyptian--stretching
back to the earliest written records
of
the human race.3 This extra-biblical practice of tithing must, of
course,
be considered when searching for the origin of the tithe. Was the
tithe
a divinely conceived custom, original with Yahweh and unique in
its
expression, or was tithing a divine adaptation of an originally pagan
custom,
bequeathed with theological significance by divine fiat? Further,
was
the tithe an act of worship alone, or a demonstration of political
subservience:
a primitive form of taxation? Or was it a combination of
the
two?
Many scholars (including most liberals)
contend that the levitical
*Mr. Snoeberger
is Director of Library Services at Detroit Baptist Theological
Seminary
in
l Henry Landsell, The Sacred
Tenth or Studies of Tithe-Giving, Ancient and Modern,
2
vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955),
2 The author
intends the term in its technical sense--a tenth. As John E. Simpson
notes
of the nearly universal pagan practice of tithing, "the amount so given
was almost
invariably
one-tenth" (This World’s Goods
[New York: Revell, 1939], p. 88). Cf., how-
ever,
Joseph M. Baumgarten, "On the Non-literal Use of
ma'aser/dekate," Journal of
Biblical Literature 103 (June
1984): 245-51.
3 Landsell, Sacred
Tenth, 1: 1-38; Arthur Babbs, The Law of the Tithe As Set
the Old
Testament (New
York: Revell, 1912), pp. 13-24; E. B. Stewart, The Tithe (Chi-
cago: Winona
Publishing Co., 1903), pp. 7-13.
72
institution
was borrowed strictly from early contemporary heathen prac-
tices.4
On the other pole, some, generally more conservative, scholars
contend
that the universality of the tithe and the failure of attempts to
discover
its origin within secular sources point to a much more ancient
practice--one
instituted by God at the very dawn of human history.5
To make either claim, one must look to
the early chapters of Gene-
sis
for clues to the genesis of the tithe. If, indeed, concrete evidence for
its
origin can be discovered here, one can be assured that the tithe origi-
nated with God and
that it was revealed by him from the very earliest
times
to mankind. Failure to discover the origin here does not rule out
the
possibility of divine origin, but it does render the origin of the tithe
an
argument from silence for either position. It is, therefore, the purpose
of
this essay is to probe the OT material, beginning with the sacrificial
practices
of Cain and Abel, continuing with the unprecedented payment
of
tithes by Abram to the priest of the most high God, Melchizedek, and
concluding
with Jacob's intention to tithe, for clues to the genesis of the
pre-Mosaic
tithe. We will then decide whether sufficient evidence exists
to
confirm its divine origin, then discuss briefly its relationship to the
levitical tithe and its
continuing applicability (or non-applicability) to-
day.
THE GIVING PRACTICES
OF CAIN
AND ABEL (GENESIS 4:3-7)
So it came about in the course of time
that Cain brought an offering to the
LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel,
on his part also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of their fat
portions. And the LORD had regard
for Abel and for his offering; but for
Cain and for his offering He had no
regard. So Cain became very angry and
his countenance fell. Then the
LORD said to Cain, "Why are you
angry? And why has your countenance
fallen? If you do well, will not your
countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the
door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."6
In an attempt to establish the
continuity of the tithe throughout
human
history, several older conservative scholars adopted an alternative
4 H. Jagersma, "The Tithes in the Old Testament," in Remembering All the Way,
Oudtestamentische Studien XXI (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 116-28; Marvin E.
Tate,
"Tithing:
Legalism or Benchmark?" Review and
Expositor 70 (Spring 1973): 153; Ency-
clopedia Judaica, s.v. "Tithe," by M. Weinfeld;
The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible,
s.v. "Tithe," by H. H.
Guthrie, Jr. Included in this group are all those who view
"cultus" as evolutionary and not revelational.
5 Landsell, Sacred
Tenth,
6 All Scripture
quotations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the 1995 edition
of
NASB.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 73
text
and translation to affirm that Cain's and Abel's sacrifices establish
tithing
as early as Genesis 4. The LXX reading of verse 7 apparently
reflects
the Hebrew "Htnl" (to
dissect or divide) rather than the MT's
"Htpl" (reflected in NASB's "at the
door"). The resulting English trans-
lation of verse 7
identifies Cain's sin as his failure to "divide rightly."
Furthering
this conclusion is an alternate reading of a NT text, Hebrews
11:4,
namely, that "Abel offered unto God a more abundant7 sacrifice
than
Cain." The conclusion drawn from these combined readings is that
Cain's
sin was specifically a failure to give an adequate percentage of his
income
to God. The percentage, it is deduced, must be none other than
a
tithe.8 This understanding is not unreasonable, as it follows the
reading
of
the LXX, the text (though not the interpretation) of the early church
fathers.9
However, the difficulty of this reading and the high degree of
accuracy
of the MT at this point have led most modern commentators
to
reject this reading out of hand,10 and with it the implied reference
to
proportional
tithing by Abel.
The Occasion
The preceding discussion does not render
the Cain and Abel inci-
dent
as having no value to the discussion of the tithe. On the contrary,
herein
is the first recorded instance of an offering presented to God in
the
OT--offerings that would later be expanded to include the tithe.11
7 The term in
question, plei<ona, includes in
its range of meaning both the qualita-
tive idea of
excellence and the quantitative idea of abundance (BAGD, p. 689), though
most
NT commentators have understood the usage in Hebrews 11:4 to be qualitative,
that
is, "a better sacrifice."
8 Landsell, Sacred
Tenth,
9 Clement, The
First Epistle o/Clement 4, in The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander
Roberts
and James Donaldson, 1st series, reprint ed., 10 vols. (
1977),
1:6; Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 4.18.3, in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, 1:485; Tertul-
lian, An Answer to the Jews 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2: 153; See
also the note on
10 E. A. Speiser, Genesis,
2nd ed., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), p. 32.
Most
commentators follow the MT without even entertaining the LXX reading in their
discussions
(e.g., S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis
[
65;
Franz Delitzsch, A
New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols., trans. Sophia Taylor, reprint
of
1888 ed. [
Book of Genesis, 2 vols., NICOT
[
Gordon
J. Wenham, Genesis, 2 vols., WBC [
Claus
Westermann gives an otherwise complete list of
philological options for the verse,
but
does not view the LXX reading as worthy of mention (Genesis, 3 vols., Continental
Commentaries
[
11 The use of the
word "expanded" in not intended to imply that the Israelite
"cult"
evolved
on its own apart from the sovereign hand of God, as is asserted by many
liberals
74
The background of this incident is
meager. We are no sooner told
that
Cain and Abel have been born when we suddenly find the boys as
men,
each with the respective occupations of agriculturalist and herds-
man.
After a period of time, both bring an offering to Yahweh. Cain
brings
some of the vegetables and fruits resulting from his labor as a
farmer,
Abel an offering of some of his livestock. For some reason not
specified
in this text, Yahweh rejects the former but receives the latter.
Several obvious questions arise from the
narrative. How did Cain
and
Abel know to bring an offering to Yahweh? What was the nature of
their
offering? Why was Cain's offering rejected and Abel's accepted?
And,
ultimately, does their gift have any bearing on the levitical
tithe or
on
the NT believer? Naturally, a correct understanding of the term used
for
this offering (hHAn;mi) is essential
to the understanding of the purpose
of
the sacrifices presented in Genesis 4. We begin here in our search for
the
tithe in the OT.
The Term
Employed
Many have concluded that the offerings
of Genesis 4 were intended
as
atoning, expiatory sacrifices, based on the assumption that God's dis-
pleasure
with Cain's offering stemmed from his failure to give a blood
sacrifice.12
This theory fails on two counts. First, the term used to de-
scribe
the offering, hHAn;mi, is elsewhere
used of a bloodless sacrifice,13 and
is
the standard term used in the levitical code for the meal
offering. Here
in
Genesis 4 Moses avoids using readily available, general terms that
(see
below); instead, it simply recognizes the progress of divine revelation which
expands
man's
knowledge and adjusts his responsibilities. We need not, indeed, must not see
the
shadow
of the Mosaic code veiled in the Cain/Abel narrative; nonetheless, this first
re-
corded
sacrifice does give us insight into God's expectations and the means by which
he
communicated
them to early believers.
12 Robert S. Candlish, An Exposition
of Genesis (reprint ed.,
ereign Grace
Publishers, 1972), p. 65. Scofield sees the sin
offering in the phrase "sin is
crouching
at the door." The term for sin (txF.AHa) may refer to
sin or to its sacrificial rem-
edy, the "sin offering."
Thus, Yahweh was informing Cain that he had not done well,
and
that his only solution was to offer a blood sacrifice (The Scofield Reference Bible [New
however,
makes this option unlikely.
13 J. H. Kurtz goes
so far as to say that the hHAn;mi was
"exclusively" bloodless (Sac-
rificial Worship of the Old Testament, reprint of 1863
edition [
Klock, 1980], pp.
158-59), as does Hamilton (Genesis,
1:223), though 1 Samuel
and
26:19 indicate otherwise. The term has a broader meaning than its technical
sense as
a
meal offering (New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, s.v.
"hHAn;mi," by Richard E. Averbeck, 2:980-87). It is best to conclude that the hHAn;mi was
usually bloodless, and
in its prescriptive, levitical sense (which is not
the case here) was
always bloodless.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 75
denote
blood sacrifice (e.g., Hbaz,). While we may
not extrapolate levitical
language
anachronistically onto the Genesis 4 incident, Moses' usage of
the
same term he would later use for the meal offering strongly suggests
that
this sacrifice was not intended to be viewed as a sin or guilt offer-
ing.14
Second, the event is predicated on the culmination ("in the course
of
time"—MymiyA
Cq.emi
[v. 3]) of a lengthy period of agricultural productiv-
ity ("Abel was a keeper of
flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground"
[v.
2]), indicating that this was no ordinary expiatory sacrifice, but a spe-
cial, additional
offering--one of thanksgiving for God's abundant
blessing.15
Thus it is roughly, though not exactly, equivalent to
firstfruits or meal
offerings, not to their regular sin offerings or tithes.
The term hHAn;mi, in its
non-technical usage, is also frequently associ-
ated with payment of
tribute or taxes (Gen 32:13 [14 MT]; Judg
17-18;
1 Sam 10:27). For this reason, it may be suggested that Cain and
Abel's
gifts were mandatory. However, the term may simply be em-
ployed ''as an
expression of respect, thanksgiving, homage, friendship,
dependence,"16
which functions do not all imply obligation.
The
Reason for Cain's and Abel's Offerings
Having deduced, then, that this was an
offering additional to the
ordinary
expiatory sacrifices, we move on to discover why the offering
was
given. While biblical revelation gives us no precedent or mandate for
this
type of offering, God's displeasure with Cain's offering implies that
Cain
failed to meet some divinely revealed requirement. We have already
rejected
the possibilities of the inappropriate content or quantity of the
sacrifice.
Other options include inadequate quality in the offering,17
14 Bruce K. Waltke, "Cain and His Offering,"
(Fall
1986): 365-66.
15 I assume that
the practice of expiatory sacrifices has been a theological necessity in
every
dispensation to effect forgiveness of sins and right standing before God.
Cain's and
Abel's
gifts, however, did not fall into this category.
16 HALOT (in English), 2:601. Cf. also
George B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testa-
ment: Its Theory and Practice (New York: Ktav, 1971), pp. 16-17; NIDOTTE,
s.v.,
"hHAn;mi" by Richard E. Averbeck,
2:986; and TWOT, s.v. "hHAn;mi," by G. Lloyd Carr,
1:514-15.
17 Waltke suggests that the v; opening v. 4 is
adversative, highlighting the "fat" and
"firstborn"
elements of Abel's sacrifice in contrast to Cain's mere offer of
"some" of his
fruits
and vegetables ("Cain and His Offering," p. 368; cf. also Delitzsch, Genesis, pp.
180-81;
Hermann Gunkel, Genesis
[
42-43;
Allen P. Ross, Creation & Blessing: A
Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
[
NAC
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), pp. 267-68.
We note, however, that
there
is no equivalent of fat for Cain's offering, nor does Moses specify that Cain's
of-
fering was not of the firstfruits. John Sailhamer, in
fact, suggests that Cain was also
76
deficient
integrity in the offerer,18 or even the simple possibility that
Abel
was the object of God's elective prerogative while Cain was
not19--the
text does not specify. The NT commentary is simply that
Abel's
offering was offered "in faith" while Cain's was not (Heb 11:4).
This
may imply that God had given explicit instructions regarding ex-
piatory and other
sacrifices;20 however, this argument flows purely from
silence.
All that can be conclusively deduced is that Cain's sacrifice did
not
issue from faith, but from other, inferior, motivation.
Conclusion
The offerings of Cain and Abel give
evidence that men professing to
be
God-fearers, from earliest times, brought offerings to Yahweh (v. 3)
from
their bounty. There was, however, no percentage specified, nor any
purpose
delineated other than direct worship and gratitude addressed to
God.
Thus, there is little to link these offerings with the basis of the en-
suing
levitical tithe, nor to shed light on its continuing
applicability.
While
it is possible that God may have established binding requirements
for
offerings in the OT apart from written revelation, we certainly can-
not
deduce from the Cain and Abel narrative that the tithe was among
these
requirements.
ABRAM'S TITHE TO MELCHIZEDEK
(GENESIS
14:17-24)
Then after his return from the defeat of
Chedorlaomer and the kings who
were with him, the king of
lem brought out
bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.
He blessed him and said, "Blessed
be Abram of God Most High, Possessor
of heaven and earth; And blessed be God
Most High, Who has delivered
your enemies into your hand." He
gave him a tenth of all. The king of
self." Abram said to the king of
Most High, possessor of heaven and
earth, that I will not take a thread or a
bringing
his firstfruits ("Genesis," in vol. 2 of The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed.
Frank
E. Gaebelein [
18 John J.
p.
99; John Calvin, Commentaries on the
First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 2 vols., trans.
John
King (reprint ed.,
1:224;
Driver, Genesis, p. 65.
19 Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A
Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), p.
104.
20 Landsell, Sacred
Tenth, 1:41.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 77
sandal thong or anything that is yours,
for fear you would say, 'I have made
Abram rich.' I will take nothing except
what the young men have eaten,
and the share of the men who went with
me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let
them take their share."
We move onward from Cain and Abel in our
quest for the genesis
of
the tithe in the OT to Abram's unprecedented tithe paid to
Melchizedek,
king of
passage
that the technical term "tithe" (rWefEma) is first used
in Scripture,
making
it the first recorded instance of OT tithing. In this incident is
found
the most promising data for the current study, thus a large seg-
ment of the essay
will be dedicated to it.
The Occasion
In Genesis 14, Abram is informed that a
band of marauding mon-
archs led by Chedorlaomer had sacked the pentapolis
that included
had
been seized, and
small
band from his household, attacks and defeats the marauders in an
unlikely
nighttime foray, pursues them far to the north, and recovers
what
had been stolen. Emboldened by Abram's remarkable success, king
Bera of Sodom
travels northward to the "King's Valley" just south of
the
valley. King Bera begrudges Abram the spoils but asks
for the re-
captured
citizenry. Melchizedek, identified here as a priest of the most
high
God (NOyl;f,
lx,),
brings out bread and wine to refresh and reward
Abram
and his men, blesses Abram repeatedly, and blesses Abram's God
for
the victory. As a biblically unprecedented reciprocation, Abram gives
to
Melchizedek a tenth of all (presumably of all the spoils). The rest of
the
spoils are then meted out and the incident is closed.
The Term Employed
The Hebrew term for "tithe" (rWefEma) is simply the adjectival form of
the
number ten, rW,f,.21 The term is used
infrequently in Scripture apart
from
the levitical and deuteronomic
legislation concerning its contribu-
tion within the
assembly. The term's employment is by no means com-
plex, but it is
precise. The tithe is an exact tenth, and is not used in a
generic
sense to refer to multiple types of offerings of varying amounts.22
In Ugaritic
and Phoenician sources the tithe was generally paid as
21 BDB, p. 798.
22 NIDOTTE, s.v.
"rWefEma," by
Richard E. Averbeck, 2:1035; cr. also H. Jagersma, "Tithes in the Old Testament," p. 117.
78
the
standard unit of taxation owed to the throne. While priests some-
times
collected this tithe, there was often no idea of worship in-
volved--the priests
were viewed as any secular recipient of the tithe
would
be.23 Further, it is apparent that, even when the priests collected
the
tithe, the state, and not the religious personnel, controlled its distri-
bution.24
This is contrary to the Mosaic legal practice, where, in all re-
corded
situations save one (1 Sam
Yahweh
through the hand of the priest, and presumably dispensed by
the
same.25
The ancient Near Eastern tithe was paid
to the king on everything
earned
by the subjects of the throne, including produce, animals, and
loot
won in battle. For this reason it is not unusual that Abram paid a
tithe.
What is unusual is the abruptness of Melchizedek's appearance,
the
lack of explanatory details concerning his kingship and priesthood,
and
the mystery surrounding his relationship to Abram. These enigmas
must
be resolved along with other questions, such as whether Abram was
paying
tithes to Melchizedek as his king or as his priest (or both) and
whether
the tithe Abram paid was voluntary or mandatory. A brief look
at
Melchizedek is in order to answer these questions.
The Recipient of Abram's Tithe—Melchizedek
Because Abram's tithe, unlike that of
the other pre-Mosaic offerings,
involves
a human as well as a divine recipient, and because that recipi-
ent's role seems even
more prominent than Abram's in the context of the
narrative,
Melchizedek merits special study. Rising suddenly to prestige
in
verse 18 and vanishing just as suddenly a scant two verses later,
Melchizedek's
function raises many questions. This brief study cannot
answer
them all, but will endeavor to answer two: What did
Melchizedek's
offices entail, and what was Abram's relationship to these
offices?
Melchizedek as
King
Several questions must be answered
concerning Melchizedek as king
before
conclusions may be drawn about the tithe paid him. First, what
23 NIDOTTE, s.v.
"rWefEma," by
Richard
Tithe
Paid in Grain at
ever,
Averbeck's remarks on the Akkadian
tithe (2:1036).
24 Jagersma, "Tithes in the Old Testament," pp.
123-24.
25 Ibid., p. 123.
This is not to say that. the Mosaic tithe had no secular func-
tion--the Mosaic
tithe provided poverty relief (Deut
function
was to finance "the service of the tent of meeting" and to provide
for the Levites
"who
have no inheritance" (Num
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 79
was
the nature of his kingship and the extent of his realm? Second, and
closely
related to the first, what was Abram's political relationship to the
king?
Melchizedek's
Realm
The term "king" (j`l,m,) may be
misleading for the reader accustomed
to
the pomp and prestige of present-day royalty. The fact that at least six
kings
occupied such a small area of southern
kingdoms
were quite small and the kings little more than local chief-
tains26
who ruled a city and the small tract of surrounding land used by
his
constituency. This is further attested by the fact that little extrabibli-
cal
material survives to tell us about these "kingdoms." On the other
hand
the marauding eastern kings were apparently much more powerful,
one
each from the Elamite, Amorite, Hurrian,
and Hittite empires.27
This
is not to say, however, that these kings represented the full force of
these
empires, nor that these empires were in the height of their glory
when
the invasion occurred.
Melchizedek's realm was the city of
ening of "
least
entertain the possibility that this was not
other
town, perhaps
Psalms
76:2 (3 MT) and 110:2, 4 identify Melchizedek's realm with
"
is
confirmed by 2 Samuel 18:18 to be the junction of the nearby Kidron
and
There
is nothing to suggest, however, that Meichizedek’s reign
in Jeru-
"holy
city" until David's establishment of the seat of his kingdom and
the
tabernacle (and later Solomon's temple) there.30
26 Philip J. Nel indicates a wide range of meaning for the term, the minimum
ele-
ment being the
exercise of rule over a realm, whether that be of a tribe, city-state, or
larger
territory such as a country or empire (NIDOTTE,
s.v. "jlm," 2:956).
27 Hamilton, Genesis, 1:399-400; Speiser,
Genesis, 1:106-8.
28 For an overview
of the options posited, see J. A. Emerton's article,
"The Site of
Emerton, Supplements to
Vetus Testammtum XLI
(Leiden: Brill, 1990): 45-71.
29 Contra Driver, Genesis, p. 164.
30 In fact, the Jebusite occupation of the city until David's conquest of
the city in
998
B.C., recorded in 2 Sam 5:6-8, makes it one of the last Canaanite cities to be
con-
quered by
80
Melchizedek's Royal
Relationship to Abram
Since it is widely held in liberal
circles that the narrative concerning
Melchizedek
(vv. 18-20) is a fictional, secondary insertion, very little
scholarship
has been spent studying the historicity of Melchizedek or the
correlation
of the Melchizedek pericope with the local context.31
This
void
of serious study makes Melchizedek's relationship to the surround-
ing kings and to Abram difficult to
discern.
Some propose that Melchizedek's was the
smallest of the kingdoms
in
the narrative, suggested by his lack of involvement in the defensive
campaign.32
Perhaps he could spare no men but could provide some
provisions
for the victors.
Others have suggested that
geous geographical
location for a city in the region, would have been the
capital
of a very important city-state in Palestine.33 Its presidence over
the
"valley of kings," apparently a very famous and important place in
the
ancient Near East34 also suggests that Melchizedek's kingship was a
powerful,
even a supervisory one. Wenham suggests that his dual role as
king
and priest would have made him a wealthy and hence a powerful
king,
as evidenced by his supply of "royal fare" for Abram.35 He
further
suggests
that his supply of bread and wine was his duty as the "dominant
ally."36
There is no explanation given, however, why Melchizedek, if he
was
so dominant, did not become involved in the military action. It is
also
inconclusive that bread and wine were "royal fare" or that
Melchizedek's
wealth exceeded that of the other local kings.
It seems, therefore, unlikely that
Melchizedek exercised authority as
an
overlord over Abram and the five western kings. This factor is of con-
siderable importance for
discussing the tithe paid by Abram--it is un-
likely
that the tithe represented a tribute or tax paid as a matter of duty
to
Abram's ruler.
Melchizedek as Priest
Having established the unlikelihood that
Melchizedek's regal
31 Hamilton, Genesis, 1:408-9, n. 4.
32 H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient
17-18.
33 J. A. Emerton, "The Riddle of Genesis XIV," Vetus Testamentum
21 (October
1971):
413.
34 Gunkel, Genesis,
p. 279.
35 Genesis, 1 :316.
36 Ibid.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 81
authority
extended over Abram, we now turn to Melchizedek's role as
priest
of the most high God (NOyl;f,
lxel; Nheko). We face similar
questions
with
Melchizedek's priesthood as we did with his kingship--What was
the
nature of his priesthood and the extent of his authority as priest?
Second,
and again related to the first, what was Abram's spiritual rela-
tionship to Melchizedek?
Melchizedek's
Priesthood
Melchizedek is labeled by Moses as a NheKo--a priest. This is the first
mention
of a priest in the OT, though the concept was not new. A priest
is
someone who stands in the gap between God and man, representing
man
to God and God to man.37 We note, then, that Abram, Noah, and
presumably
all godly familial heads and clan-leaders in the pre-
Abrahamic era functioned
as microcosmic priests in a limited capacity as
primitive
mediators of what would later become the theocratic kingdom.
The first consideration in the study of
Melchizedek's priesthood is a
very
basic one--Whom was Melchizedek serving as priest? The text in-
dicates that the deity
served was called "the Most High God" (NOyl;f,
lxe).
What
has been of considerable debate is whether this deity is to be iden-
tified with Yahweh,
the God of Abraham, or with some local deity.
Liberals have generally contended that NOyl;f, lxe
was a local deity.38
Based
on their assumption that the Hebrew religion began with Abram
and
over time evolved into modern Judaism, they naturally contend that
a
reference to Abram's Yahweh in this pericope would be
anachronistic.
This
contention is furthered by their conclusions that the shortened
names
for Myhilox,, NOyl;f, and lxe are very late developments,39
heightening
the
anachronism of seeing Yahweh in Genesis 14:18-20. Further com-
plicating the matter is
the absence of the article on lxe, suggesting
that
this
is a local god, and not the Hebrew God. Instead, it is assumed that
the
use of lxe is the widely
used Semitic term for various and sundry
gods,
a term which
God.
This theory is fraught with bad exegesis
and unbiblical assumptions.
First,
it must be noted that the absence of the article is common with
compound
names for God,40 rendering its absence here ancillary to the
discussion.
Second, the Hebrew term NOyl;f, has no secular
parallels other
37 NIDOTTE, s.v.
"Nhk," by
Philip Jenson, 2:600.
38 Speiser, Genesis,
1:104; Westermann, Genesis, 2:204; Driver, Genesis,
p. 165;
Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 279-80. Wenham also takes
this view (Genesis, 1:316-17).
39 Speiser, Genesis,
1:104.
40 Delitszch, Genesis,
1:409.
82
than
a rather recently developed Phoenician god, whom Philo labeled as
]Eliou?n, o[ u!yistoj, who even liberals admit emerged long after the Is-
raelite usage had been
established (Num 24:16, Deut 32:8, etc.). We
conclude
with Speiser and Gunkel
that the term was not borrowed by
term
from her.41 Further, as
deity
]Eliou?n was the
grandson of lxe.42 Thus, even if a
correlation is
attempted,
it fails to give us a single god, but two separate ones. In only
one
other occasion in all known ancient Near Eastern literature are lxe
and
NOyl;f, found together--in
Psalm 78:35 of the Hebrew canon, and
that
with reference to the God of Israel.43 We conclude that there is
simply
no evidence for a god by the name of NOyl;f,
lxe in the Canaanite
or
any other pantheon.
Furthering this conclusion is later
revelation in Psalm 110, where
Melchizedek's
priesthood is discussed with reference only to
hvhy—neither lxe nor its cognates are mentioned in the entire psalm.
Sealing
the matter is Hebrews 5:6, 10, where the Greek equivalents of
both
hvhy and lxe (ku<rioj and qeo<j)
are used interchangeably in the
context
of the priesthood of Melchizedek. There is no question that the
NOyl;f<
lxe whom Melchizedek served as priest was Abram's God,
the God
of
[Abram]
would have acknowledged the priesthood of anyone other than
a
representative of the true God."44 We add to this that Abram
would
never
have acknowledged anyone put the one true God as the "creator of
heaven
and earth" and the God who gave him victory in battle (vv.
19-20).
We move on now to discuss the extent of
the authority of
Melchizedek's
priesthood. It apparently was a common practice in the
ancient
Near East for a king to function as a priest for his people.45 In
fact,
it is apparent that Abram himself functioned in much the same ca-
pacity, building
altars and offering sacrifices (functions of a priest) while
functioning
as the leader of his clan as a "mighty prince" (Myhilox< xyWin;), a
term
translated as "king" (basileu<j) in the LXX
version of Genesis
23:6.
This is in keeping with the dispensational setting of Melchizedek's
day.
As yet there had been no establishment of a single central altar.
41 Speiser, Genesis,
1:104; Gunkel, Genesis,
p. 280.
42 Genesis, 1:410.
43 Cf. also Psalm
44 The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1972), p. 124.
45 Gunkel, Genesis,
p. 280; Westermann, Genesis, 2:204-5; Wenham, Genesis,
1:316.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 83
There
had been no formal introduction of Abram as the priest for the
world,
though it had been privately revealed that his was to be the cho-
sen line to bring blessing to all
the nations. Thus it seems likely that,
until
this point, the dispensation of human government was in effect.
God-fearers
of this period approached God through their various God-
fearing
clan-leaders--such as Melchizedek.
This solution, however, only leads to
another question. If
Melchizedek
had jurisdiction as priest only within his own clan (there
being
no biblical basis for regional high priests with hierarchical sover-
eignty over lesser
priests) why did Abram recognize Melchizedek as his
priest?
Melchizedek's
Spiritual Relationship to Abram
If Melchizedek's jurisdiction extended
no further than his clan, the
tithe
paid by Abram to Melchizedek46 seems a bit out of place. Hebrews
7:7,
however, in discussing Abram and Melchizedek, insists that, "with-
out
any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater," thus implying that
Melchizedek
was in some sense greater than Abram when he blesses
Abram,
and, presumably, when he received tithes from Abram.
Alva J. McClain recognizes the
complexity of this passage and ac-
knowledges the possibility
that "in the era before Abraham there were
other
kings who held a similar mediatorial authority between
their sub-
jects and the true
God."47 He goes on to theorize that it was "this precise
point
in Biblical history. . . [that] marks the end of an era and the begin-
ning of a new order
of things."48 Melchizedek's blessing effectively her-
alded for the whole
world that the mediatorial idea was being localized
in
"concrete form historically in miniature."49 The theory
makes
Melchizedek
roughly comparable to other transitional figures, such as
Anna,
Simeon, and John the Baptist, who, having announced the arrival
46 This essay
assumes, with most commentators, that the tithe was paid by Abram to
Melchizedek,
although the text is perhaps less than absolutely explicit on this point. R.
H.
Smith contends that it was Melchizedek who paid the tithe as an attempt to
bribe the
warlike
Abram to leave the area ("Abraham and Melchizedek," Zietschrift fur die Alttes-
tamentliche Wissenschaft 77 [1965]:
134). This narrow view ignores, however, the
broader
context of Scripture (Hebrews 7) and the traditional understanding of the pas-
sage
(LXX). J. A. Emerton objects to Smith's view, but
asserts that leaving Abram as the
tither contradicts
verse 23, where Abram is said to have given all the spoil back to the
king
of
Abram
would not take anything that belonged to the king of
does
not preclude his tithing or giving the culturally accepted share owed to hired mer-
cenaries (see below).
47 The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), p. 50.
48 Ibid., p. 51.
49 Ibid., p. 50
84
of
the Messiah, faded into oblivion. Representative of this view before
McClain
was none other than Robert S. Candlish, who, though
no dis-
pensationalist, on this one
point sounds like one:
Melchizedek, as the last preserver, as
it were, of the primitive patriarchal
hope, hands over his function to one
more highly favored than himself, in
the very spirit of the Baptist--"He
must increase, but I must decrease"
(John 3:30). His own occupation, as a
witness and standing type of the
Messiah, is over; one newly called out
of heathenism is to succeed and to
take his place He hails in Abram the
promised seed, and blesses him ac-
cordingly Thus the
Patriarchal, the Abrahamic, and the Levitical dis-
pensations appear, all of
them, in their true character, as subordinate and
shadowy.50
Although the theory cannot be verified
(McClain and Candlish ar-
gue from silence that Melchizedek relinquished
his priestly functions
after
this incident), there is much to commend it. The timing is correct,
since
Abram's call was quite recent. The public announcement is appro-
priate, for without it
no one would have been aware of the dispensa-
tional change. The
prominence of Melchizedek's delivery of blessings
(j`raBA is employed three times in the two
verses of Melchizedek's brief
discourse)
is also significant in light of the reciprocal blessings promised
in
the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3) to those who
would bless
Abram.
Melchizedek's repeated blessings and his disclosure that God
was
blessing and being blessed51 specifically through Abram announced
to
the listening world that Abram had been specially selected by God as
his
unique mediatorial representative.52
The question still remains, however, why
Melchizedek was viewed as
"greater"
than Abram, able to give him a blessing, and worthy of receiv-
ing his tithe. The commentaries are
generally silent on this issue, and the
question
is difficult to answer. It seems best to understand that
50 Genesis, p. 143.
51 The action of
blessing implied in the term j`raBA, as explained
by Hebrews 7:7, al-
ways
flows from the greater to the lesser. It is no contradiction, however, that
Melchizedek
"blessed" God. While active blessing (the impartation of something of
value
to someone) can never be offered by mortals to God, men can "bless"
God in a
"passive
and stative sense" by speaking highly of him or
attributing praise to him
(NIDOTTE, s.v.
"jrb," by
Michael L. Brown, 1:764). Hebrews 7:7 is by no means at
odds
with Genesis 14:20.
52 Victor Hamilton
completely misses the point of the repeated use of j`raBA when he
begrudges
Abram his blessings while his 318 companions went unmentioned with the
sarcastic
comment, "As one would expect, it is the general, not the private, who
gets the
kudos"
(Genesis, 1:409). It is not because
Abram was the "general" that he got the "ku-
dos";
it was because he was one with whom God had covenanted to make a great nation
and
to be a source of blessing to all the nations.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 85
Melchizedek
was not permanently or personally superior to Abram, but
that
at that moment Melchizedek stood between God and Abram and
as
the better."53 Indeed,
any time a person stands in the place of God
his
superiority is instantly, if temporarily, confirmed by virtue of the
God
he represents. McClain's comments (above) may also be informa-
tive: Melchizedek,
representing the authority of the old dispensation,
was
ceding the reins of the incipient mediatorial kingdom
to its new
mediator,
after which time Abram became superior to Melchizedek.
We thus conclude that Abram's
recognition of Melchizedek as a su-
perior was not because
Melchizedek was some type of regional high
priest,
hierarchically presiding over all other lesser priests in the area.
Nonetheless,
for the moment, Melchizedek stood in the place of God,
and,
as such, exercised temporary spiritual authority over Abram, an
authority
which Abram recognized by the giving of a tithe.
The Reason for Abram's Tithe
In the previous section we established
that the basis for Abram's
tithe
was the (temporarily)54 superior priesthood of Melchizedek. We
now
move to Abram's purpose for giving him a tithe. Was it a social
(political)
function or an act of pure worship? Was it mandatory or vol-
untary?
Some suggest that Abram's was a
primitive payment to the deity for
making
him victorious in battle.55 This is generally a liberal idea56
and is
held
only by those who deny that Melchizedek was a priest of the one
true
God.
Others, chiefly those who view Melchizedek
as a theophany, view
53 Kent, Hebrews, p. 129.
54 By using this
qualifier the author is not intending to negate the arguments of He-
brews
5-7 or Psalm 110. For typological purposes, that moment of superiority was cap-
tured by the later
authors and coupled with a few of the sudden and mysterious factors
surrounding
the appearance of Melchizedek in Scripture to provide vivid illustrations of
the
superiority of Christ. As with all types there is not a one-to-one
correspondence be-
tween every detail,
thus it is not necessary to elevate Melchizedek to some mysterious or
supernatural
plane to preserve the analogy between him and Christ (as some have done
by
suggesting that Melchizedek's appearance in Genesis 14 was a theophany).
Melchizedek,
it should be concluded, was simply a literal, historical human being whose
life
was directed by God to serve as a type of Christ (See Kent, Hebrews, pp.
124-27).
55 Westermann, Genesis,
2:206; Speiser, Genesis.,
1:109; Wenham, Genesis, 1:317.
56 A more
radically liberal idea, held by Gunkel (Genesis, p. 281) and Driver (Gene-
sis, pp. 167-68),
is that the character Melchizedek was pseudepigraphal,
being invented,
along
with the legend of the Jebusite coalition, in David's
time to lend legitimacy to the
establishment
of his new capital in
86
the
gift as a direct act of worship to God.57
Still others suggest that the tithe was
rendered to Melchizedek as his
share
of the spoils of battle in compensation for his role in the conquest
of
the four invading kings, a "postbellum
distribution of the booty, in
which
the spoils are distributed equally between those who personally
fought.
. . and for those who for one reason or another did not actively
engage
in the fighting."58 This reminds us of similar incidents in
Num-
bers 31:17 and 1
Samuel 30:21-25, where personnel left behind were
afforded
shares of the spoils despite their failure to actively participate in
the
battle.
While this last theory is attractive, it
has a few flaws. First, the tithe
to
Melchizedek is set apart from the rest of the distribution of the
spoils--the
tithe occurs in verse 20, but the provisions for distribution
of
the spoils are not made until the very last verse of the chapter. Fur-
ther, Abram's tithe
is mentioned in close proximity to Melchizedek's
priestly
blessing of Abram, suggesting that his tithe-giving had a purely
spiritual
purpose, not a politico-cultural one. The king of
did
not understand this exchange, and apparently thought that the divi-
sion of spoils had
begun in v. 20. He immediately jumped in and made
his
bid for the people of his city, abandoning all hope of regaining any-
thing
else. Abram's negative response is quite revealing: he wanted no
blessings,
material or spiritual, from the wicked king of
cloud
or overshadow the priestly blessing he had just received from
Melchizedek,
nor create any sense of obligation of Abram to Sodom.59
As
a result, he renounced all claim to the spoils. Third, Abram's com-
ments in verse 23,
that he would not take anything that rightly belonged
to
the king of
and
a small mercenary stipend for the efforts of Abram's companions,
the
rest of the spoils went back to their previous owners. This is in con-
trast to the ancient
Near Eastern custom. While the spoils belonged le-
gally to Abram,60
simple kindness required him to return the property to
its
rightful owners.
It seems most likely that the tithe was
paid to Melchizedek as a vol-
untary reciprocation
for the priestly functions performed by
Melchizedek
and a thank offering given to God for the success of the
military
excursion.61 As such it represented a willing consecration of a
57 Candlish, Genesis,
pp. 142-46.
58 Hamilton, Genesis, 1:413.
59 Ibid.,
1:413-14; Ross, Creation and Blessing,
p. 300-302; Sailhamer, "Genesis,"
pp.
123-24.
60 Wenham, Genesis, 1 :317.
61 Delitzsch, Genesis,1:410.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 87
portion
of the goods to God through the hand of the priest, in acknow-
ledgement that the whole
belonged to God.62 It also represented
Abram's
recognition that the dispensational baton, as it were, was being
passed
to him by its legitimate forebear.
Why Abram chose a tenth and not some
other amount is not ex-
plained. As has been
already demonstrated, payment of a tenth was a
universal
practice in the ancient known world. We may hypothesize that
God,
though unrecorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, established the tenth
as
a general figure to be spent on priestly administration, but it may be
that
this amount was simply selected by Abram as a reasonable amount
to
fulfill sacrificial duty to God. Nor have we ruled out the idea that the
custom
was merely adopted from Abram's heathen neighbors. Genesis
26:5,63
which informs us that Abrabam obeyed God, along with
all his
commandments,
statutes, and laws, could point to the first of these op-
tions, but there is
no clear link of 26:5 with the specific statute of tith-
ing.
We may only speculate about
Melchizedek's subsequent usage of the
tithes
he received, but it seems likely that they went to finance the
priestly
services provided by Melchizedek as a mediator for God.64
Conclusion
While Abram's tithe apparently meets
with God's approval, several
factors
lead us to conclude that it has little bearing on the levitical
tithe
and
on our current practice. First, the tithe mentioned here is unique to
the
transition between the dispensations of human government and
promise
and has no genuine parallels in the rest of Scripture. Second, the
silence
as to the origin of and the apparently voluntary nature of
Abram's
tithe render it unlike anything in the rest of biblical experience.
Abram's
tithe had a purpose, origin, and nature distinct from the Mosaic
institution.
JACOB'S PROMISED
TITHE (GENESIS 28:18-22)
So Jacob rose early in the morning, and
took the stone that he had put un-
der his head and
set it up as a pillar and poured oil on its top. He called the
name of that place
been Luz. Then Jacob made a vow, saying,
"If God will be with me and
will keep me on this journey that I
take, and will give me food to eat and
garments to wear, and I return to my
father's house in safety, then the
62 Candlish, Genesis,
p. 142.
63 See W. W. Barndollar's extensive discussion of this verse in his
"The Scriptural
Tithe"
(Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1959), pp. 80-99.
64 Ibid.
88
LORD will be my God. This stone, which I
have set up as a pillar, will be
God's house, and of all that You give me
I will surely give a tenth to You."
The second and only other OT mention of
the tithe prior to the
giving
of the Mosaic Law comes in the form of a tithe promised to God
by
Jacob after his ladder vision at
Abrahamic Covenant to
Jacob there (vv. 10-15). As in the
Abram/Melchizedek
narrative, the Hebrew term rWefEma is used, so we
are
sure
that it is an actual tithe in question. Since this term has already been
discussed,
we move directly to a study of the occasion of this promised
tithe
to understand its purpose and to glean insights into the validity and
continuing
applicability of Jacob's practice.
The Occasion
The event comes at a particularly turbulent
period in Jacob's life, a
fact
which weighs heavily on our study. In chapter 27, Jacob, true to his
name,
had completed the two-fold deception of his father and brother,
and
had successfully stolen the birthright away from Esau. Esau's resul-
tant rage and
apparent intent to kill Jacob for the deception led Jacob, at
his
mother's bidding and with the blessing of his father, to flee to the
house
of his uncle, Laban, until his brother's anger
abated.
In route to Laban's
house Jacob is arrested by a dream in the city of
Luz
(which he later renamed "Bethel"). In the dream, Yahweh renewed
the
Abrahamic Covenant with Jacob. In so doing, Yahweh
confirmed to
Jacob
that he was the chosen son through whom the covenant blessings
would
flow. Jacob awakens in fear and quickly erects an altar at the site
of
the dream and gives a sacrifice of oil on an altar to God. Upon mak-
ing the sacrifice he offers up a vow
to God that he would make Yahweh
his
God and give him a tenth, presumably of all his possessions, so long
as
Yahweh spared him, provided for his needs, and prospered him dur-
ing his sojourn at his uncle's
residence. God was true to his promise, but
there
is no indication whether or not Jacob fulfilled his vow.
Again, questions arise from the
narrative that affect our under-
standing
of the promised tithe. Was Jacob's promised tithe an act of
faith
or part of some sort of inappropriate "bargain" made with God? If
the
latter, can Jacob's tithe be considered normative or foundational to
the
study of the tithe in the rest of the OT, or have any bearing on its
practice
(or non-practice) today? Whether or not the vow was actually
fulfilled,
what was the reason and purpose for Jacob's tithe?
The
While most evangelicals have maintained
that this dream finds or at
least
leaves Jacob converted, there are three factors in the narrative and
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 89
one
in Genesis 32 which indicate that Jacob's vow to tithe to Yahweh
was
an illegitimate act of worship.
First, Jacob's reaction of fright upon
the appearance of Yahweh in-
dicates an improper
relationship to God. Many commentators take the
reaction
by Jacob to be a healthy, reverential awe of God and his de-
scription of the site as
"awesome," inducing genuine worship.65 If this is
the
case, Jacob's succeeding actions denote consecration. This is a le-
gitimate interpretation
of the terms employed. In fact, the "fear of the
Lord"
seems to be the OT equivalent for faith (Prov 1:7). The
Hebrew
root
xry ("to
fear"), represented in the Jacob narrative by the Qal
im-
perfect
and niphal participle respectively, however, has a
wide range of
meaning,
extending from a meaning of "reverence" or "respect" on one
pole
to "terror" or "fright" on the other.66 The
present context favors the
second
pole.67 First, whenever the term is used elsewhere of Jacob in
subsequent
contexts, it clearly denotes "fright," that is, fear that caused
him
to respond by running or conniving, rather than trusting (e.g.,
31:31,
32:7, 11).68 Second, Jacob's ignorance that God could be here in
Luz
(v. 16) may indicate that he was shocked to find God here.69 Waltke
and
O'Connor concur, demonstrating from the emphatic adverb NkexA
that
the verse conveys "a sudden recognition in contrast to what was
theretofore
assumed."70 If this is the case, then Jacob is betraying a
woeful
lack of knowledge and respect for the Almighty. Third, as Ham-
ilton points out,
this is the only instance in the patriarchal narratives
(except
possibly
or
fright. The other patriarchs always "took theophanies
in stride."71
Further developing the
"fright" idea of the term xry
is
Jacob's ap-
parent
lack of faith in the explicit promises of God. After hearing the
promises,
Jacob makes a conditional vow whose conditions were the very
promises
he had just received from Yahweh. In verse 15 Yahweh prom-
ises to be with
Jacob, to keep him, and bring him back to the land. Ja-
cob
responds in verse 20 that if indeed God remains with him, keeps
65 Candlish, Genesis, pp. 294-96; Delitzsch,
Genesis, 2:165; Ross, Creation and
Blessing, pp. 491-94;
Wenham, Genesis, 2:223-25; John J. Davis,
Studies in
Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), pp. 243-44.
66 BDB, s.v. "xreyA," p. 431.
67 NIDOTTE, s.v.
"xry," by M. V.
Van Pelt and W. C. Kaiser, Jr., 2:528-29.
68 Hamilton, Genesis, 2:244.
69 Ibid.,
2:243-44.
70 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona
Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns,
1990), p. 670.
71 Genesis, 2:245.
90
him
safe, clothes and feeds him, and returns him to the land, then he
would
make Yahweh his God, pay tithes, etc.72 By thus casting his con-
version
in the future, Jacob is apparently refusing to exercise faith at this
time.
Some suggest the conditional particle, Mxi (“if”) used
here precludes
a
genuine contingency,73 instead meaning “since," or “forasmuch
as,''
much
like the Greek first class condition. However, the grammar of this
passage
suggests otherwise. In his remarks about conditional clauses, Ge-
senius comments:
With regard to the difference between Mxi (xlo
Mxi) and Ul (xleUl), the
fundamental rule is that Mxi is used if the condition be regarded either as al-
ready fulfilled, or if it, together with
its consequence, be thought of as
possibility (or probability) occurring
in the present or future. In the former
case, Mxi is followed by
the perfect, in the latter (corresponding to the
Greek e]a>n with the
present subjunctive) by the imperfect or its equivalent
(frequently in the apodosis also).74
The
immediately following lead verb (hy,h;yi) is in the
imperfect, and all
the
succeeding verbs of the protasis are cast in the
perfect with the v con-
secutive (making their
function equivalent to the imperfect), clearly
demonstrating
that the vow represents a genuine contingency.75 Thus,
his
actions of building an altar and his promise to tithe on his livelihood
are
not deeds of faith; instead, they are wary, fearful acts of a trapped
person
to appease and "strike a bargain" with God.
To the grammatical argument we add an
obvious theological one.
The
sheer brazenness of a mortal establishing a conditional covenant
with
the Almighty gives evidence to Jacob's unconverted state. To place
God
under obligation to act a certain way and to stipulate that God
must
fulfill certain obligations before one consecrates himself is not an
act
of faith but an audacious challenge to God's sovereignty, inspired by
72
not
part of the apodosis (Genesis,
2:248). As such the verses should read, "If God stays
with
me. . . protects me. . . gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and I
return safely
to
my fathers house and if Yahweh shall be my God; then this stone. . . shall be
God's
abode.
. . and a tenth will I tithe to you" (2:237-38). This interpretation does
little to
change
the "bargaining" arrangement proposed by Jacob.
73 Candlish, Genesis,
pp. 294-95; also Barndollar, "Scriptural
Tithe," p. 108.
74 E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius' Hebrew
Grammar, 2nd English ed., rev. A. E. Cowley
(Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1910), pp. 494-95. On p. 496, the very passage in question is
used
as an example of genuine contingency. Cf. also Waltke
and O'Connor, Hebrew
Syntax, pp. 526-27.
75 Barndollar makes a serious error in affirming that "all
the verbs which follow Mxi
in
verses 20 and 21 are perfect" ("Scriptural Tithe," p. 108), a
faulty affirmation which
he
uses to support his theory that there was no actual contingency in Jacob's vow.
The
grammar,
in fact, proves quite the opposite.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 91
unbelief.
Finally, the events surrounding Jacob's
dream at Peniel and his
wrestling
match there (32:24-32 [25-33 MT]) indicate that this latter
event
was the actual conversion of Jacob. The name change (v. 28 [29
MT])
from Jacob ("deceiver") to
a
mere change of name, but is representative of a change in charac-
ter--from a depraved self-server to
one who recognizes and submits to
God's
sovereignty. Likewise, Jacob's naming of the site "Peniel"
("the
face
of God") is not due to his struggling with God himself,77 but
be-
cause
he has finally come to a point where he has recognized Yahweh as
his
God and, much to his relief, is enabled to exercise true faith in the
promises
made to him at
that
Jacob's conversion experience took place at Peniel,
then, naturally
precludes
its occurrence at
One notable objection to such a late
conversion date for Jacob, and
perhaps
the reason why most commentators assume Jacob to be saved in
Genesis
28, is the bequest of the Abrahamic promises to Jacob
at
It
is contended that God's reiteration of the Abrahamic
promises to Ja-
cob
assumes his salvation. This, however, is a logical non sequitur. The
OT
teems with examples of beneficiaries of national election, even heads
of
the mediatorial kingdom, who were never converted (e.g.,
many of
the
judges and kings, most notably, Saul). The unconditional covenant
promises
given nationally to the patriarchs and their descendants had no
direct
bearing on their individual election to salvation (Rom 9:6). Thus
it
was not necessary for Jacob to have been a believer to receive the
blessings
of the Abrahamic Covenant.
This author, with a fair degree of
confidence asserts, then, that Ja-
cob's
vow to tithe was made while he was yet unconverted. This fact,
coupled
with the silence as to the fulfillment of the vow render this ref-
erence to tithing a
rather slender strand of evidence for affirming the
foundation
of the levitical tithe or asserting an ongoing tithe
in our pre-
sent
dispensation.
The Reason for Jacob's Promised Tithe
The fact that Jacob settled on a tithe
as opposed to some other
76 Hamilton, Genesis, 2:334. There is a bit of debate
regarding the exact meaning of
this
name. The scope of this essay, however, does not require interaction with the
debate
except
to assert that the change of name signals a change of heart.
77 Whether or not
the "man" with whom Jacob struggled was a preincarnate
form
of
Christ is a matter of considerable debate; however, since this is not,
apparently, the
source
of the name "Peniel," the issue will be left
unresolved.
78 Hamilton, Genesis, 2:337.
92
amount
may indicate that he had some prior exposure to the tithe. Jacob
may
have been following the lead of his grandfather or other God-fearers
with
whom he was acquainted. In light of Jacob's faulty view of the ex-
tent
of God's presence, authority, and faithfulness to His promises and
of
Jacob's willingness to demean God's sovereignty by "bargaining" with
Him,
it is more likely that he was borrowing the tithing practice of the
surrounding
pagans. As with Abram, no clear conclusions may be
drawn.
Nor is it certain what the purpose or
method of payment was if, in-
deed,
Jacob fulfilled his vow. While Abram still had a priest external to
himself,
it seems unlikely, if McClain's and Candlish's theory79 is cor-
rect, that any
legitimate priests of Yahweh remained to whom Jacob
could
pay his tithes.80 Perhaps he would have consumed the tithe on an
altar
to Yahweh, or used it to finance priestly duties performed among
his
family. Again, the text gives us no sound answers.
Conclusion
Because Jacob's promised tithe
resembles, even derives from, the
heathen
practices of his neighbors, it adds little to our study. The basis
for
the levitical tithe certainly does not derive from
Jacob's practice. This
fact,
coupled with Jacob's unconverted state and the silence of Scripture
as
to the fulfillment of Jacob's vow, should cause us to dismiss Genesis
28
from consideration in the quest for the genesis of the tithe.
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE PRE-MOSAIC TITHE
FOR PRESENT-DAY INSTITUTIONS
If tithing were confined to the Mosaic
Law it would be easy to dis-
miss
its validity today. In that the Mosaic Law has been set aside in the
work
of Christ (Rom 10:4,2 Cor 3:7-11, etc.), tithing, as part
of that
unified
legal corpus, would also be set aside.81 The pre-Mosaic tithe
complicates
the issue, raising the possibility that the tithe might be a
trans-dispensational
practice, part of the moral code of God, and thus a
continuing
obligation for NT believers.
There can be no denial of the fact of
tithing before the Law;
80 Cf., however, Barndollar, "The Scriptural Tithe," p. 111.
81 To be sure,
many a covenant theologian would recoil at such a statement and as-
sert that the law is
still in effect and the command to tithe is still in vogue (e.g., Edward
A.
Powell and Rousas J. Rushdooney,
Tithing and Dominion [
House,
1979], pp. 11-14). The scope of this essay does not include this issue, so it will
be
left for others to debate. Instead this section will address the continuing
validity of the
tithe
strictly on the basis of the pre-Mosaic practice.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 93
however,
the assertion of a continuing principle necessitates more than a
mere
mention of the term "tithe" prior to the giving of the Law. As
Pieter
Verhoef, a non-dispensationalist, concedes, "a
pre-Mosaic custom
does
not, as a matter of course, transcend the Old Testament dispensa-
tion, becoming an
element of the universal and timeless moral code."82
There must also be clear evidence that
the tithe was divinely mandated
before
the Law or somehow sourced in God's nature. Further, there
must
be a parallelism between the practice of the tithe in the pre-Mosaic
period
and that in our present experience.
God's
Nature and Mandate and the Pre-Mosaic Tithe
Many suggest that the universal practice
of the tithe and the failure
of
attempts to identify its origin in the secular realm point to its divine
origin
and continuing practice from Adam onward.83 Others do not
trace
the practice to Adam, but contend that God gave Abram direct
revelation,
and "started allover," establishing a new precedent with
Abram
that was continued by
many
flaws with this theory.
First, it has already been established
that neither Abel's nor Jacob's
practices
are legitimate paradigms for a biblical tithe. Thus, we are left
with
only Abram's practice to prove that the tithe was practiced by all
God-fearers
for the millennia prior to the giving of the Law. This hasty
generalization
from a single datum of evidence renders the argument
very
weak.
Second, universality of practice in the
secular realm does not prove
that
God is the originator of the tithe. This is yet another logical non se-
quitur. It seems far
more reasonable that Abraham was not acting by di-
vine
mandate, but in accordance with the ancient Near Eastern customs
of
his day.85
82 "Tithing:
A Hermeneutical Consideration," in The
Law and the Prophets: Old
Testament Studies
Prepared in Honor of O. T. Allis, ed. John H. Skilton
(
Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1974), p. 122.
83 Landsell, Sacred
Tenth,
further
maintains that «divine acceptance. . . is a demonstration of a divine
institution"
(The Tithe, p. 37). This is a classic
example of a non sequitur.
84 R. T. Kendall, Tithing (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 45; Driver, Genesis,
p.
166; Skinner, Genesis, p. 269.
85 This
possibility in no wise reduces
practices
that evolved into a final form. God clearly created the OT Jewish legal system
by
divine fiat, and was by no means bound to pagan customs in his formation of the
Law.
On the other hand, neither was he obliged to avoid all pagan customs in the
for-
mation of the Law.
Timothy H. Fisher, for instance, notes that the pagan practice of cir-
cumcision predates God's
institution of circumcision in Genesis 17 by hundreds of years
("A
Study of the Old Testament Tithe," [Th.M. Thesis, Capital Bible Seminary,
1990]
94
Third, there is no basis for claiming
that
of
tithing from Abraham or Jacob. On the contrary, it is clear that "the
normative
significance of tithing must be considered within the context
of
the ceremonial law."86 Indeed, both post-pentateuchal
injunctions for
not
the practice of the patriarchs (Neh
Fourth, there is never an appeal to
God's nature or to creation as a
basis
for tithing. How a mere percentage, apart from an explicit com-
mand, can take on
moral value is impossible to establish.
Fifth and in summary, the hypotheses
that the pre-Mosaic tithe had
its
basis in God's command, God's nature, or God's approval all argue
from
silence.
Parallels to the Pre-Mosaic Tithe
Another argument against the continuing
applicability of the tithe is
the
simple lack of present-day parallels to the pre-Mosaic practice.
First, Abram's tithe was apparently a
one-time act, not a regular
giving
pattern. There is no record of Abram's return to Melchizedek,
and
the references to his tithe in the singular in Hebrews 7:4, 6 point to
a
one-time gift.87
Second, Abram's tithe was made strictly
on the spoils of war seized
from
the coalition of eastern kings. While the Hebrew and Greek texts
simply
state that Abram made a tithe of "all," this clearly cannot mean
he
gave Melchizedek a tenth of his entire possessions--Abram surely was
not
seems
certain that it was only the spoils on which Abram tithed.
Third, there is no present-day recipient
of a tithe that can parallel
Melchizedek.
The church bears little resemblance to a priest/clan-leader.
Furthermore,
the usage of the tithe by Melchizedek and the church
(missions
outreach, etc.) are dissimilar.
We conclude, then, that there is nothing
in pre-Mosaic tithing
practices
to serve as a basis for viewing the tithe as a trans-dispensational
p.
11, n. 1). This issue is also addressed by David G. Barker ("The Old
Testament He-
brew
Tithe" [Th.M. Thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1979], p. 131).
86 Verhoef, "Tithing," p. 122.
87 Again, Barndollar shows extraordinary carelessness in his
exegesis, maintaining in
support
of a regular tithe that "the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews declares
that
Melchizedek
'received tithes of Abraham' (Heb. 7:6). The plural number of the word
certainly
suggests more than one visit by Abraham to Melchizedek for the purpose of the
presentation
of his tithes to the Lord's high priest" ("Scriptural Tithe," p.
60). While the
King
James Version does cast the tithe in verse 6 in the plural, and the Greek term
for
tithe,
dedeka<twken (dedeka<twke in the Majority
Text and Textus Receptus),
is incon-
clusive, a simple
comparison with verse 4 results in a conclusion opposite Barndollar's.
The Pre-Mosaic Tithe 95
and
thus a continuing principle for the NT church. There is simply no
evidence
to support the claim.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this paper leaves the reader
with the difficult and per-
haps
unsatisfying verdict that the pre-Mosaic title did not originate with
divine
revelation. In fact, the evidence suggests identifying the practice
of
the patriarch's pagan neighbors as the basis for patriarchal tithing
practices.
It is only as God placed theological significance on the tithe in
Leviticus
that the tithe became mandatory and meaningful.
One looks in vain for evidence of
proportional giving in the Cain
and
Abel narrative, finding only a few short verses to even fuel the possi-
bility that any
sacrifices at all were given to God apart from expiatory
sacrifices.
Certainly there is insufficient evidence to support a tithe.
The first OT mention of the tithe is in
the context of an extraordi-
nary
event with no parallels in the levitical system or
today. Instead, it
was
a dispensational marker heralding the shift from the dispensation of
human
government to the dispensations of promise. The recipient of
Abram's
tithe and its purpose have no parallels in NT practice or in the.
levitical system.
The second OT mention of the tithe is
even less helpful, as the
promised
tithe of Jacob is never said to have been actually paid and the
giver
has been demonstrated to be unconverted at the time of the vow.
The
recipient and purpose of Jacob's tithe, if it ever materialized, are
cloaked
in such obscurity that the identification of any parallels in the
present-day
or in the levitical system is impossible.
We conclude, therefore, that the
pre-Mosaic tithe was merely a
culture-bound,
voluntary expression of worship reflective of the ancient
Near
Eastern practice of the time, and adapted by Abraham as a means
of
expressing gratitude and attributing glory to Yahweh.
:
www.dbts.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium