Rev. Henry Constable (Gold or the Gospel) has well said, “The Levitical priesthood, by the command of God, received tithes of their people. It follows as certainly that Melchizedek had the same claim to a tenth from Abraham which they had from the Jews, i. e., a divine command. For, surely, if a tenth were Levi’s right by divine ordinance, while Melchizedek had no such right at all, he is in this respect inferior to Levi, and Paul’s argument from his reception of a tenth from Abraham an inconclusive one.” Why, too, if Christ does not have such a right and does not receive the tithe is He not in that respect at least inferior to Levi?
Again, we quote Dr. John Owen. “When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchizedek, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of himself, and his whole posterity.” He argues the significance of the act as follows. Abram was called to be “the foundation of a new church;” he “had now received the promise” not only for himself, but for “all his seed in him,” and whatever he “did in obedience unto God, he did undertake in it for his posterity.” Wherefore “Abraham, in this solemn address unto God by Melchizedek the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his covenant obedience unto him, was the representative of all his posterity and in particular of Levi and all the priest that descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue of a covenant, in behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it nor in it, he doth in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenth unto God by Melchizedek, as the chief rent which God forever reserved unto himself, upon the grant.” This is a remarkable argument from one who earlier in his comments rather hesitatingly tries to break the force of the tithe argument in general, largely, it is evident, because of the misuse of it under the monstrous enforced system of his day. However, if we, as Paul contends in Galatians, are children of faithful Abraham, and “there are not two churches, but two states of the same church” as Dr. Owen puts it, then either Scripture contradicts itself, or we prove false to our covenant relationship and dishonor Christ when we do not do homage to Him in person, as our father Abraham did in type in the paying of tithes. I see no escape from this alternative.
Calvin is the only commentator, so far as I have seen, that has given a consistent interpretation to the 8th verse. He says, “For he thus reasons—those to whom the Law assigns tithes are dying men; by which it was indicated that the priesthood would some time be abrogated, as their life came to an end: but the Scripture makes no mention of the death of Melchizedek, when it relates that tithes were paid to him, so the authority of his priesthood is limited by no time, but on the contrary, there is given an indication of perpetuity. But this is added for this purpose, lest a posterior law, as it is usual, should seem to take away from the authority of the former law. For it might have been otherwise objected and said, that the right which Melchizedek formerly possessed is now void and null, because God had introduced another law by Moses, by which He transferred the right to the Levites. But the Apostle anticipates this objection by saying, that tithes were paid to the Levites only for a time, because they did not live: but that Melchizedek, because he is immortal, retains even to the end what has been given to him by God.”
The editor, Rev. John Owen, adds this comment: “The obvious meaning of this verse is given by Calvin. The Levites were dying men, which shewed the character of their office; Melchizedek is represented as not dying, which betokens that his office as a priest, is perpetual.” The tribute to the priesthood was only a temporary right of the Levites, it will be noted Calvin claims, and that it is the perpetual right of the priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek. How clear and luminous is this interpretation when compared with that of many who stumble around over that verse and pretend not to be able to see just how it fits into the Apostle’s argument. It seems to me that we strike the most triumphant of all the notes in this great address to the Hebrews in this very verse. Our High Priest has as His type one that liveth. This is preparing the way for the “power of an endless life” and “He ever liveth” which come later on in the chapter. We are dealing with that which has no end, which is true as much in respect to the tithes paid as to any other part of this divine arrangement. Any claim that the Levites had was only for the time. Any claim that Christ has had is living, is perpetual and no posterior grant can make it null and void. Here, then, we have a strong and inconvertible statement of the claim that Christ has on the tithe and that at just the point where we might be led to expect it. It seems to me that a man must be hunting for something when he passes this by and cries out for proof.
It may be worth while to call attention to this fact that the oldest Babylonian reference shows that the tithe was centuries before in force in the near vicinity of this same Melchizedek and that it is not any longer a question where Abraham got his idea of a tithe.
Rev. Henry Constable also makes this further point which is worth notice. The tithe is not ceremonial as is shown by the fact that “no part” of Jacob’s offering “was for the use of the priesthood. The priest of Jacob’s household was Jacob himself. When there was no ministry to support it was yet God’s claim and accorded to Him.”
It scarcely seems necessary to prolong this discussion. The universality of the tithe, as a moral obligation, seems to me to be beyond question. It is the universal minimum of the race in the matter of giving to the gods and the conclusion seems inevitable that it is the original requirement of God. Forms, materials, and incidents of giving may have varied, but the standard never. There does not appear any satisfactory reason for believing that it does not survive the changes from the Old to the New Dispensation. The voluntary tithe was recognized and urged on all hands until in the sixth century A. D. The general confusion of Church and State and everything else that followed gradually took away its voluntary character. It became a sort of enforced tribute to that monstrous duality which presided with such mock dignity over all interests, sacred and otherwise, until the time of reformation when divine truth and order began once more to appear. In all the mighty overturnings of the era of Wickliffe, Luther, Calvin and Knox, these “stalwart old iconoclasts” all contended for the tithe. While they lashed unmercifully the lazy monks and worldly clergy, yet with Wickliffe they preferred “the good old custom of paying tithes, according to one’s own free-will, to good and godly men, who were able to preach the gospel.”
Possibly it would be well to say of Selden who is generally quoted as opposed to the tithe, that he himself says of his famous book, “It was not written to prove that tithes are not due by the Law of God.... Neither is it anything else but itself, that is, a mere narration, and the Historie of Tithes.” It comes out in the course of the narrative, however, that he was contending for the voluntary tithe, just as has been done in this discussion. He was suffering, as many others like him have suffered, from the oppression of human enactment and perversion in respect to that which God intended to be a gracious and wholesome provision. Hence arises the odium which attaches to the word tithe. But odium is not enough to excuse the retention of a principle represented by a name. Like the name Christian which we bear, it can by God’s help be made an honorable one. It was so perverted in the time of the kings of Israel, as God had warned them it would be. Hezekiah, however, restored its proper usage. The tithe was never intended for a national tax to support the State. Its support was at first voluntary as it seems (1 Sam. 10:27). It came to be a fixed tribute by the demand of such kings as Rehoboam. It is to be remembered that odium, and perversion, and the plea of heavy taxes, did not prevent Malachi from accusing the whole Jewish nation of robbing God. The tithe is still holy to Him and ought to be brought into His house and must, if large blessings are to come.
The facts adduced lead inevitably to the main conclusions reached, if I understand the principles of logical induction. This method of induction is quite popular at present, when applied to certain historical data. I am persuaded that if as much surplus ingenuity and lauded scholarship were expended on these data as are expended on other data to establish useless hypotheses, the Church of God would be more edified and would become “liberal” in a manner more pleasing to God. Strictness in doctrine and liberality in giving surely are more compatible with divine teaching than liberality in doctrine and stinginess in giving. Liberality has affected the wrong thing. The slackening of doctrinal teaching has benefited nothing, but has brought a flood of Rationalism, Infidelity, and Unbelief on the Church. Loosen the purse strings and cherish “the faith once delivered to the saints” as God gave it, and we have His word that the floods of evil shall be driven back by the floods of heavenly blessings which He challenges us to receive.
The sweep of the facts is broad. The conclusions are inevitable. The tithe is universal. Its duty remains to be performed. It seems an unnecessary trespass on time and patience to try to meet all the quibbles that may be started. It is not time for sentiment, nor is it well to bring in the poor, as if God did not know how to provide for them. Pastors know that the poor are not the grumblers. Many complain against the law that the one-seventh of time is God’s. The Sabbath is not counted a burden, neither is it annulled on that account. Complaint settles nothing. People complain of everything under the sun and often of things above the sun. We are not called upon to adjust the relations of capital and labor which make the Sabbath and the Tithe an oppression (if you please to call them such), in order to prove the obligation of the Sabbath and the Tithe. One-seventh of time and one-tenth of money belong to the Lord. Who takes either for his own robs God, His word being witness. The same question arises as to why both are not more distinctly taught in the New Testament. Both are old and well established. Each is a minimum demanded without reservation. If this be not true of the tithe, then there is no law governing that grace of God in which we are to abound, unless it be that we should hold with some of the Fathers that “those who have received liberty should set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purpose.” This is the only other method that has the much demanded New Testament approval, so far as amount is concerned. I do not find even our brethren who are so strenuous for New Testament teaching and practice, falling over themselves to adopt this method. Our own denomination is reckoned as a liberal one, but counting its income according to government reports which place the average income of every man, woman, and child at 55 cents per day, we have never paid for all purposes more than one-third of one-tenth of our income into the Lord’s treasury. Some other branches of the Church may be a little better, but many of them are unquestionably worse. Well might Chrysostom exclaim, “O what a shame! that what was no great matter among the Jews should be pretended to be such among Christians!” Instead of giving a tithe, we fall so far below it that the tithe actually seems visionary to us. The most careful calculations show very clearly that God knows how much money he wants for His work and that with the tithe of the Church’s income at present, the world could be evangelized in this generation. The early Christians gave often all their means and all their time. We complain of one-seventh of time and one-tenth of money. If the Jews could give 25 per cent from the produce of Judean hills and valleys, why cannot we give cheerfully at least one-tenth to the kingdom of Him who though He was rich yet for our sakes became poor that we through His poverty might be rich? He who falls below one-fourth gives less than the Jew. Having a better covenant, established on better promises, and administered by a better Mediator, shall we grumble at one-tenth, the tribute of a heathen or savage to a god he dreads and with no spark of divine love to call forth his offering? To fail to pay the tithe is not only worse than Jewish but even worse than heathenish. Nowhere do we find such niggardliness, no not even in a heathen.