Seeing that the tithe has been so universal, it may be of interest to inquire why it should have been so universal. It matters little whether you take the portion offered to the gods or the tribute to the kings as the Sons of Heaven and representatives of the gods, why should we find in all these ancient civilizations one-tenth as the universal offering? Why should not all have had one-sixth as in India at one time? It surely cannot be ascribed to the inherent generosity of the priests and rulers. Seven is also a sacred number. Why did they not require one-seventh?
The tithe finds an interesting parallel in sacrifice with which it is closely connected. For when one is commanded to sacrifice, the minimum at least must be set to his sacrifice. Sacrifice, I believe, was a divine institution given to our first parents in Eden. Most likely the tithe is seen, in germ at least, in the offerings of Cain and Abel. The Council of Seville viewed Cain’s sin as one of covetousness in withholding a portion of the tithe or part that God required. The Septuagint reading of Gen. 4:7, which the early Church Fathers seem invariably to adopt, and a literal translation of Heb. 11:4 point to this view. Personally I like to translate the latter “more of a sacrifice” which is simple and includes both the idea of quantity and that of quality and spirit. Wickliffe translated it “a much more sacrifice.” Westcott maintains that this is correct. The critical scholars generally admit that such is the natural rendering, but claim not to be able to see why such a thing should be said. Covetousness played so prominent a part in the parent’s fall, why should it not in the son’s sin, seeing that it is one of the most persistent of the Satan brood? Dr. John Brown, in his Commentary on Hebrews, Vol. II., page 41, quotes another who says: “It is easy to be demonstrated that sacrifices owe their original to the will and appointment of God. The Apostle says, as Moses said before him, that Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable to God. But it would not have been acceptable if it had not been of divine institution, according to that plain, obvious and eternal maxim of all true religion, Christian, Mosaic, and natural, ‘In vain do they worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,’ Mark 7:7. If there be any truth in this maxim, Abel would have worshipped God in vain, and God would have had no respect to his offering, if his sacrifice had been merely a commandment of his father Adam, or an invention of his own. The divine acceptance, therefore, is a demonstration of a divine institution.”
This line of argument is almost unanimously accepted among Christian scholars as an adequate basis for the belief that sacrifice was a divine institution. Why is it not fully as applicable to tithing? It is not stated in Scripture, prior to the giving of the Mosaic law, that either is a divine institution. But if “divine acceptance is a demonstration of a divine institution,” the tithe has as clear a demonstration of its origin as has sacrifice. Now and then in Scripture the whole business of sacrifice is spoken of in a deprecating way. Cf. Heb. 10. Such is not the case in respect to the tithe, unless Amos 4:4 be so taken.
But whatever view one may take of the origin of the tithe, there can be no reason for the claim that it is a Jewish institution. It is true that there are some people who seem to think that Adam was the first Jew and that everything from Adam to Christ was Jewish. In the very region whence came Abraham, the first Jew, the tithe was in force as early as 3800 B. C., which is nearly 2000 years before there was a Jew. It was as well defined in Babylonia at that period as it was in Judea in the time of Moses and would much better be called Babylonian than Jewish.[B]
In conclusion, we may reiterate the words of Dr. Kennicott. “Whatever custom has prevailed over the world, among nations the most opposite in polity and customs in general, nations not united by commerce or communication (when that custom has nothing in nature or the reason of things to give it birth, and establish to itself such a currency), must be derived from some revelation, which revelation may in certain places have been forgotten, though the custom introduced by and founded on such a revelation still continued; and further, this revelation must have been antecedent to the dispersion at Babel, when all mankind, being but one nation and living together in the form of one large family, were of one language and governed by the same laws and customs.” With sacrifice, the tithe went abroad over the face of the whole earth and survived long after its origin was forgotten. If “in the annals of all times none are found which did not pay tithes” among the nations of the past, either as an offering to the gods or as a tribute to the rulers, the evidence certainly warrants the conclusion that “offerings of at least one-tenth to God, was a primeval appointment not for the Jews, but for all nations.”
Second: Although Universal it Was Incorporated Into and Made the Basis of the Mosaic System of Tithes.
In the Mosaic system there was a general tithe, conforming in every feature to this universal tithe. Then there was a second tithe, of national significance only, used as material for a feast at a designated place the first and second year. But the third year it was to be eaten at home, the poor sharing in the feast. This is the best view, I think, of what some call the third tithe. Hence every Jew offered two-tenths each year besides the first-fruits and all other offerings free-will and required. Counting the first-fruits at from one-thirtieth to one-sixtieth (as rabbis tell us they were estimated) the Jew must needs give about twenty-five per cent of all his yearly income. Chrysostom figures it at a third to a half, but the probability is that he has it too high. Those of us who speak on the tithe are often accused of trying to put the Church back on the Jewish basis, which is another of those foolish things that even some fairly intelligent people seem to never tire of saying, no matter how little sense there is in them. To reach a Jewish basis, the average Christian would have to give at least ten times what he is now giving, not merely one-tenth of his income. Let us get up to the heathen standard, before we worry too much about being Judaized.
Third: Being Universal the Principle of the Tithe is not to be Counted as Abrogated When the Old Testament Economy Ended, Unless it be so Stated or at Least by Fair Inference be Implied.
It certainly is not stated anywhere in the New Testament that the tenth is no longer the Lord’s. Neither can any fair inference be drawn showing that it is no longer holy to the Lord. The two incidents cited, it is true, contain rebukes to the Pharisees who were tithers, but the tithing is not condemned any more than is prayer or fasting. It is the manner, not the principle, that is condemned. On the contrary, tithing is emphatically commended. For the Savior says, “These ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone.” I am well aware that it is the reply of many that Christ merely commended their doing what was a plain duty under the Mosaic law, but that he in no way implies that such a duty was binding on others. Granting that the first statement is an assumption, then we have it answered by another assumption, with the result that the whole statement of Christ is of no weight in the matter. Christ did not always fall in with the teachings of the Mosaic system, as for example in the matter of granting divorce. If He had wanted to do away with the tithe, certainly He could have said so, as clearly as He did in matters of divorce. He does not here, or elsewhere, offer any substitute for this universal standard, and He spoke often on the subject of money and of covetousness. One verse in every four in the gospels by Matthew, Mark, and Luke have to do with these subjects, and one verse in every six in the whole New Testament. Certainly if a new standard were to be revealed, there is abundance of opportunity.
The objection may be stated here that sacrifice was likewise universal. True enough, but we have fulfillment of all its obligations and typical significance in the perfect sacrifice, “The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” “Our High Priest who needeth not daily like those high priests who offer up sacrifices, first for his own sin and then for the sins of the people. For this he did once for all when he offered up himself.”