(
Gen 14:16-20)
What the Bible does say
Abram, victorious over the armies of the kings, had rescued his nephew Lot and brought back all the goods and captives previously taken by enemies. He was met by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, who blessed him and to whom Abram gave "tithes of all" or, as most translations render it, "a tenth of everything."
The Bible does NOT say
- that Abram was obeying a set law prescribing that a tenth be given;
- and that God had commanded him to pay this amount.
Perhaps this biblical example
implies that tithing was obligatory? We cannot argue for or against a decision from silence on a matter.
A closer examination
Note that Abram gave Melchizedek "a tenth of everything" he had brought back from battle. Abraham will be in the first resurrection, is therefore a part of the Bride of Christ, and is therefore a Christian (Gal 3:8; Heb 11:10). Abram was "giving" as opposed to "paying" a tenth. Melchizedek did not use any compulsion of law to collect this tenth. By contrast, in Lev 27:30-33; Num 18:24; Deut 14:22-29, the words "give" or "gave" are not used in describing the obligations of the Israelites to tithe in the Law of Moses.
Christians in various churches are urged to follow Abraham's "tithing" example, but the means of this tithe precedent, going to war to save, is precluded from
any explanations. This could hardly be called a consistent use of precedence.
Abram was giving a tenth of the spoils of war, as Heb 7:4 says. Some of the possessions he had recaptured belonged to Lot (v 16), but most of them belonged to the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (v 11). None belonged to Abram, who refused to take anything that belonged to the king of Sodom (vv 21-24). How can it then be stated that Abraham was acting in accordance with a universal tithing law which was later codified? Nowhere else is there any reference to Abraham tithing.
- Tithes were paid of crops from the land or of animals to a long-term Levitical priesthood (Lev 27:30-31). The spoils of war are not an increase from farms, orchards or ranches.
- After the battle, Abram was left with no more than he had possessed previously (v 24). So there was no "increase"!
- There was, moreover, no biblical teaching that a tenth of the spoils of war was subject to tithing.
Consider the following two examples.
- When Israel "spoiled" the Egyptians, there is no evidence that any tithes were paid on their acquisitions, even if these spoils are to be considered as back wages due to them for their years of slavery (Ex 3:21-22; 11:2-3; 12:35-36). They did later make liberal offerings to the building of the tabernacle.
- The Israelites defeated the Midianites in battle and divided the war booty (Num 31:1-12). One five-hundredth was taken from half the total booty given to the men of war and was allotted to the priests. One fiftieth of the other half given to the 'congregation' was allotted to the Levites. There was no set tithe-one tenth-of the booty given. There was no agricultural increase-the fruits of human effort and God's blessings. The Mosaic instructions given by the LORD (v 25) regarding the spoils of war did not include the requirement to tithe, even though the booty included cattle and sheep (Num 31:9, 26-31).
We see then that Abram's action in giving a tenth to Melchizedek was not in accord with any clear
law of tithing then written or unwritten. Abram may have been responding, in part, to customs within the religious culture of his day. He did recognize Melchizedek as the high priest of God (Heb 7:1). He retained nothing of the spoils, so nothing was "tithable". They would have been mostly goods and possessions, treasures and valuables, we would assume, along with captive slaves and animals. Abram would have realized (if a tithing law were in force) that since only
new crops and animals were subject to the tithe, he was not required to pay.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore
the fact that Abram tithed on the spoils of war. He gave a tenth to Melchizedek, most to those who had been robbed, and some to those who had helped (Gen 14:21-24). Whenever this example is used to induce people to tithe it seems that other problems inherent in this historic event are overlooked. If Melchizedek was the preincarnate Jesus Christ, who were his supporting priests? Who were his subjects in Jerusalem? Does this historic event suggest that the first public preaching of the Gospel was to Jebusites (Gal 3:8)? This is a problematic example to use to induce others to tithe. But this OT event is used as part of the argument to persuade people that it is an important precedent and example of tithing by the "father of the faithful" (Gal 3:7-9; Rom 4:12,16; Isa 51:2). This is a precedent and example of great importance, but is it of
tithing?
ABRAHAM AND HIS TIMES
For Abraham, the principle of the tithe was not something new for in his Babylonian cultural environment the practice was common. Cuneiform tablets contain frequent references to tithing in ancient Chaldea and Ugarit in Syria. The great temples of Babylonia were largely supported by the
esra, or tithe, which was levied on prince and peasant alike. Tithing in ancient cultures is invariably associated with a sacrificial system and offerings to a god or gods. (See W. von Soden,
The Ancient Orient, [Eerdmans: 1994], pp 188-98; A. Leo Oppenheim,
Ancient Mesopotamia, [University of Chicago: 1977], pp 183-98; W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament, [SCM: 1987], Vol 1, pp 141-77; Harris, Archer, Waltke (editors),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, [Moody Press: 1980], Item 1711, and 1711c,h; G. Roux,
Ancient Iraq, [Penguin: 1983], pp 127-8; 132-3; 161-4; 196-200; 369-70).
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Douglas, Hillyer, Bruce, et al (editors), [IVP: 1988]), which is a popular three-volume Bible dictionary, makes this introductory comment: "The custom of tithing did not originate with the Mosaic law (Gn. 14:17-20), nor was it peculiar to the Hebrews. It was practised among other ancient peoples" (
TITHES, p 1572). More detailed verification is in the above sources.
Abram, who was familiar with these ancient practices common in Ur, Haran, and amongst the Canaanites, gave, as a freewill offering of thanksgiving, a tenth of the spoils of war; a thank offering of a tithe for the very likely miraculous deliverance of all and for the retrieval of the stolen goods. Perhaps an additional reason for the offering was that it was made to a king-priest, Melchizedek. Nevertheless, it was
voluntary. Admittedly, the writer of Hebrews uses Abraham's example to compare it to the tithes the Levites received (Heb 7:5). But more on this later.
WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK?
The HarperCollins
NRSV Study Bible says Melchizedek was
a Canaanite priest-king. Footnotes in the
Jerusalem Bible (Darton, Longman & Todd: 1966) say that 'several of the Fathers even held the opinion that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Son of God in person.' The NJB 1985 edition does not include this comment. The Soncino Press
Chumash has a footnote saying,
The Midrash identifies him with Shem (as do some Targums on the Pentateuch (W.R. Inge & H.L. Goudge,
Hebrews, [Cassell: 1924], p 61). The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) fragment, 11QMelch, which identifies him as 'the Elohim who takes his place in the divine council in the midst of the elohim (cf. Ps 82:1).'G. Vermes,
The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, [Penguin:1990], pp 300-301), has:
- He [The Almighty God] will assign them (i.e., the captives given liberty) to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; for He will cast their lot amid the portions of Melchizedek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them the wrong-doings of all their iniquities.
Gerhard von Rad in his
Genesis commentary, (SCM: 1972), makes these comments (p 179):
- Ps. 110 connects the Melchizedek tradition with the Davidic throne and since Ps. 76.2 uses the name Salem for Jerusalem, one must here hold to the identification with Jerusalem. The supposition of a pre-Israelite city-king of Jerusalem does not cause the least difficulty since the discovery of the correspondences between the Syro-Palestinian city-kings and the Pharaoh during the fourteenth century B.C. In it were discovered letters from a prince of Jerusalem. The name Melchizedek is certainly old-Canaanite (cf. Adonizedek, Josh 10.1). The combination of both offices, priest and king, in one person was not unusual in the ancient Near East (e.g., in Phoenicia).
The commentator goes on to say that this priest-king was a heathen (p 180), but adds:
- ... the most important thing is that Abraham received the blessing of the precursor to David and the Davidic dynasty, that even Abraham had recognized his duty toward Jerusalem and its king (p 181).
The Jesuit, Leopold Sabourin, in
The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning, (Alba House: 1974), expresses similar views:
- Melchizedek, king at Salem, the Jebusite city, was a priest of el-elyon (God-Most-High: Gn 14:18), worshipped by the Phoenicians and the Canaanites. In a way David installed Yahweh in Zion, to replace the former divinity. In return (cf. Ps 2:6), Yahweh proclaimed David king and priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) and made with his family an eternal covenant (cf. also Pss 89:3,4,28,29,36; 132:10ff) [p 358].
The Westminster
Dictionary of the Bible, (New York: 1944), has this interesting comment:
- Melchizedek, as described in Heb. 5:10; 6:20; ch. 7, was without father, without mother, without genealogy. This statement means that his pedigree is not recorded (cf. Ezra 2:59,62). This mode of expression is ancient. Thus Urukagina, king of Lagash (c. 2450 B.C.), who is famous for his economic reforms, said that he had neither father nor mother, but that the god Ningirsu appointed him; he was probably a usurper. Melchizedek is further described as having neither beginning of days nor end of life, of whom it is testified that he lives. He suddenly emerges from the unknown and as suddenly disappears; it is not known whence he came or whither he went; neither birth nor death is assigned to him; he is a type of undying priesthood.
The identity of Melchizedek and his significance are controversial. If a claim is made that he is literally
without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Heb 7:3), that he is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, then we have Jesus Christ living and ruling in a Jebusite city in the days of Abraham. The Jebusites were heathen. Who were his helpers in his temple? Would some of them have formed a pre-Levitical priesthood? Such questions seem to be unaddressed when claims are made that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ directly ruling over a heathen city.
