A CASE AGAINST THE MONETARY TITHE REQUIREMENT

Every other Sunday, an announcement is made from the pulpit about whatever
one has to offer unto the Lord, either TITHE or OFFERING. I’m not concerned
about the latter; after all, offering was (and is still) supposed to be voluntary,
given from the heart and without a prescribed specific amount. More often than
not, the following verses of the Scriptures are quoted to support the claim:

1. Malachi 3:8-10: ‘Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say,
Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a
curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into
the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now
herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of
heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to
receive it.’

2. Luke 6:38: ‘Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed
down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom.
For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you
again.’

3. Proverbs 3:9: ‘Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits
of all thine increase.’

In the same vein, the supporters of the tithe doctrine, in order to buttress their
point, claim that:

1. Abraham tithed before the Law (Genesis 14:20).

2. Jacob vowed to tithe (Genesis 28:22).

3. Jesus commanded (or commended, if you wish) tithing in the New Testament
(Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42).
The above explains the foundation on which the doctrine of monetary tithing
hinges. However, some believers (even genuine ones) still confuse GIVING
with PAYING TITHES. To me, this shows a state of spiritual naivety, because
the two concepts differ. GIVING is without compulsion, necessity or grudge;
TITHING is surrendering a tenth of one’s salary or profit to a/the church
denomination.

This is why I dislike, with passion, gullible believers whom can ‘swallow’
anything pushed to them. Their pastor says ‘Give your tithe’ and quotes from
Malachi, and then they feel guilty for NOT dropping anything in the offering
bag. (Offering bag, another misrepresentation itself.) Worse still, nobody would
notice that the clause ‘give your tithe’ is Scripturally incorrect [see the appendix
for more details]. If anybody does point out the error, he or she must be an
enemy of the cross, an anti-Christ. SMH.

The Lord Jesus Christ, while on earth, used the words ‘…ye pay tithe…’ and
‘Give, and it shall be given unto you…’ He never used the word ‘give’ with
‘tithe’, so it is unscriptural to use the words ‘give tithe’. Instead, ‘pay tithe’ is
allowed.

‘If we must tithe, let’s all tithe like Abram did.’ Abraham Adekunle.

Well, I believe your eyes played a trick on you because you did not notice that I
wrote ‘Abram’ instead of ‘Abraham’.

ERROR NUMBER ONE: Abraham did not tithe; Abram did. ‘And he blessed
him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and
earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies
into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek] tithes of all,’ Genesis
14:19-20.
ERROR NUMBER TWO: Abram tithed war spoils; therefore, if we must tithe,
we ought to tithe war spoils, so that we can perfectly emulate Abram.

‘Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham
gave the tenth of the spoils,’ Hebrews 7:4. (Fact check, God had changed
Abram’s name to Abraham. God Himself said in Genesis 17:5 that ‘Neither
shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be called
Abraham…’ Hence, from that same chapter, Abram became Abraham, never to
be called Abram again. And the things Abram did was now attributed to
Abraham. This can be seen in Hebrews 11:8, ‘By faith, Abraham, when he was
called to go out…’ Abram was called and not Abraham.)

The consequences of using Abram as a buttressing point for tithing are:

1. We do not give tithe from our personal properties. Abram already had
properties in Canaan after he and Lot separated.

2. If we must tithe, we must go out in battle, win and then give a tenth of the
war spoils to either Melchizedek or Jesus in person (since Jesus is the only One
after the order of Melchizedek, Psalm 110:4).

I welcome any Scripture-based counteragument against the above points.

‘No vow is made without the LORD asking for its payment,’ Abraham
Adekunle.

The claim is that Jacob vowed (promised) to tithe. Please, can you point out
anywhere in the Scriptures where Jacob actually tithed? But the vow was made
and God visits the transgression of the father on the children, even until the
fourth generation. The vow was this (Genesis 28:20-22):
THE CONDITIONAL CLAUSE: [1.] ‘If God will be with me, [2.] and will
keep me in this way that I go, [3.] and will give me bread to eat, and rainment to
put on, [4.] So, that I come again to my father’s house in peace;

THE CONSEQUENCE: [1.] then shall the LORD be my God: [2.] And this
stone which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: [3.] and of all that thou
shalt give me I will surely give the tenth to thee.

God kept His part of the bargain. Jacob was protected. He settled peacefully
with Esau. But you know what? Mr Jacob only kept two out of three of his own
part:

1. He erected an altar (a pillar made with stone). Genesis 33:20: ‘And he [Jacob]
erected there an altar…’

2. He said the LORD was his God. Genesis 33:20: ‘And he erected there an
altar, and called it El-elohe-Israel [which means, God the God of Israel]:’ Note
that his name had been changed to Israel.

3. Mister Jacob, where is the tithe you promised God? Nowhere to be found. In
my opinion, God made it a Law in Israel because that part was not fulfilled. If
you have a better explanation, you are welcome, but it still does not change the
fact that Jacob vowed to tithe but never did. If we must follow in his footsteps,
we must also:

a. Vow the same vows.

b. Fulfil the conditions except the tithing part.

‘What do you consider the era of the New Testament? Pre-crucifixion or Post-
resurrection? The Gospel According to Matthew or The Acts of the Apostles?’
Abraham Adekunle.
We were taught from childhood that the New Testament begins at Matthew. We
held it sacred until we landed in the youth section of the denominational church.
What we were (and are still) not told is that ‘the New Testament’ differs from
‘the New Testament era’. This scenario happens a lot in the judiciary. A bill
might have been passed into law, but could take from a few months to years to
be implemented. The Eric Ashby Commission recommended, in May 1959, the
establishment of the University of Lagos. The UNESCO Commission Report
also supported the recommendation in 1961. Then the University of Lagos was
established by the University of Lagos Act in 1962, starting with four courses. It
was later in 1964 that some faculties were added.

Now, we can say that 1959 to 1962 was the pre-establishment of the university;
it was established in 1962. We cannot count 1959 to 1962 as an era that the
university was established. Rather, it was the formative years. The formative
years of the New Testament was recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The establishment of the New Testament which automatically ushered in the
New Testament era was sealed by the blood of Jesus (that is, was analogously
passed into law).

In the New Testament era, things were done differently. Here are examples:

1A. Gentiles cast lot to ascertain who was the cause of their misfortune in Jonah
1:7: ‘And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we
may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell
upon Jonah.’

1B. In what appears to be the New Testament era, same was done by… wait for
it… the apostles. Jesus had just resurrected and led them to Bethany. Now, the
only question their curiosity could fathom was, ‘Lord, wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?’ Acts 1:6. (Behold the spirit of politics and
of ‘leadership’ [see the appendix for more details]!) The response Jesus gave to
them quelled the curiosity for politics. But one still remained: leadership. The
only instruction Jesus gave them was to wait in Jerusalem for the Comforter,
NOT appoint Judas’ replacement. If they had waited for the Holy Ghost, maybe
He would have told them to wait because God was reserving the seat for Saul of
Tarsus. No wonder, they all had to cast lot to appoint Matthias. ‘And they gave
forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the
eleven apostles,’ Acts 1:26. God would have violated His promise if He had
commanded that Matthias should not be called an apostle, because Jesus had
given them the power to bind and to loose.

1C. In the New Testament era, things are done in a different way. The Holy
Ghost makes the decisions as seen in Acts 13:2: ‘As they ministered to the
Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the
work whereunto I have called them.’

2A. In the Old Testament era, the Jews had no dealings with the Gentiles. ‘Then
saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest
drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with
the Samaritans,’ John 4:9. No dealings. Not even helping each other. Yet
another scenario in Matthew 14:22-26: ‘And, behold, a woman of Canaan came
out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord,
thou Son of David: my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he
answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying,
Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped
him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the
children’s bread, and cast it to dogs.’ Wow! Even His disciples saw nothing
wrong with His decision and asked Him to send her away.

2B. In the New Testament era, things are done in a different way. The Spirit had
told Peter to visit Cornelius. ‘While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost
fell on all of them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which
believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost,’ Acts 10:44-45. In fact,
Peter’s decision to visit Cornelius was alien to the other believers and they
accused Peter. ‘And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the
circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men
uncircumcised, and didst eat with them,’ Acts 11:2-3. Peter had to ‘rehearse the
matter from the beginning’ before he could be exonerated.
Other things to point at to show that the Synoptic Gospels were not the
beginning of the New Testament era include the fact that Jesus had not shed his
blood to usher in the New Covenant and the Jews still adhered to the Law,
hence, the paying of tithe.

Having established that the Synoptic Gospels were not the New Testament era
(which is open to counterarguments), I also wish to illustrate Matthew 23:23 as
no valid reference for tithing money.

ONE. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and the Scribes. ‘Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!’ Matthew 23:23.

TWO. The tithe paid was agricultural. ‘…for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cumin…’ Matthew 23:23.

Here are what the three items stand for:

MINT: The original Greek word is ‘heduosmon’ pronounced /eIdu:ͻsmͻn/

(/hay-doo’-os-mon/). It menas ‘a sweet-scented plant’. The English dictionary
defines mint as ‘any member of the mint family of plants’.

ANISE: The original Greek word is ‘anethon’ pronounced /æneIɵͻn/ (/an-ay-

thon/). Its synonym is ‘dill’. A dictionary search of the word gives the following
definitions: 1. Native to Egypt but cultivated widely for its aromatic seeds and
the oil from them used medicinally and as a flavouring in cooking. 2. Liquorice-
flavoured seeds, used medicinally and in cooking and liquors. A dictionary
search of the word ‘dill’ gives ‘aromatic threadlike foliage of the dill plant used
as seasoning’.

CUMMIN: The original Greek word is ‘kuminon’ pronounced /kumInͻn/ (/koo-

min-on/). It is of foreign origin and its synonyms are ‘dill’ and ‘fennel’.
However, the Hebrew-Greek-to-English dictionary suggested another word
‘kammon’ pronounced /kam-mone/ and defines it as ‘from an unused root,
meaning to store up or preserve; “cumin” (from its use as condiment)’.
I believe you do not need the pictures of those plants to believe they are really
plants.

THREE. Tithing was (and is still) a matter of the Law. ‘…for ye pay tithe of
mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law…’
Matthew 23:23.

WEIGHTIER: This is a comparative adjective, meaning it is used to compare

items. Do the following words mean anything to you?

-Tall, taller, tallest.

-Small, smaller, smallest.

-Weighty, weightier, weightiest.

-Big, bigger, biggest.

Jesus was simply saying that ‘judgment, mercy and faith’ are weightier law
matters when compared to tithing. For example, what does the following
statement mean?

-You flogged Tobi, Tola and Uche, and left more troublesome students (Ada,
Azeez and David). You should have flogged Tobi, Tola and Uche, and not leave
the other students unflogged.

First, it means Tobi, Tola, Uche, Ada, Azeez and David are all troublesome
students. Second, Ada, Azeez and David are more troublesome THAN (note the
comparison) Tobi, Tola and Uche. Third, all the troublesome students should
have been flogged instead of a selected few.
The question now is, ‘why would Jesus say both should have been done (by the
Pharisees)?’ The answer lies in James 2:10: ‘For whosoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all’. The Pharisees never
denied that they were under the Law, so they must adhere to everything written
in it.

Now, I have clearly proved that Jesus was not commending tithing money in
Matthew 23:23. But what about these three popularly used references when
requesting that one tithe money: Malachi 3:8-10; Luke 6:38; Proverbs 3:9.

Let us take the last two, first. Luke 6:38 did not mention tithe neither did
Proverbs 3:9. I do not understand why people bring those verses into
discussions about tithing. So, I will not be analysing the verses. Digression is
easy to entertain but difficult to recover from. If you think I have erred in my
argument on those two references, please bring along verifiable
counterargument.

WHAT DID MALACHI REALLY SAY ABOUT TITHING? AND TO

WHOM?

However, Malachi 3:8-10 contains the word ‘tithes’ and so falls in the category
of what I should dissect. First, whom was Malachi written to?

-Israel. ‘The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi,’ Malachi
1:1.

-In fact, the commandments in Malachi were directed to priests. ‘And now, O
ye priests, this commandment is for you,’ Malachi 2:1.
Second, had not some priests been robbing God? The standard practice for the
Israelites was to take the tithes of their crops and livestock (NOT money) to
Levites in their communities who in turn take the tithe of the tithes to Jerusalem
in the house of God. The place where the tithes were stored was called the
Storehouse.

‘And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the
fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers
of the house of our God; AND THE TITHES OF OUR GROUND UNTO THE
LEVITES, that the same Levites might have the tithes in all the cities of our
tillage. And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the
Levites take tithes: and THE LEVITES SHALL BRING UP THE TITHE OF
THE TITHES UNTO THE HOUSE OF OUR GOD, to the chambers, into the
treasure house,’ Nehemiah 10:37-38.

Consequently, the tithe of the tithes were the ones remitted to the Storehouse. If
it was remitted, then it was not the grassroot populace who did the stealing. It
was someone or some people directly connected to the Storehouse.

Before I give an example, let me clear the confusion about ‘Storehouse’,

‘treasure house’ and ‘chambers of the house of God’.

STOREHOUSE: The original Hebrew word is ‘bayith’ pronounced /bah’-yith/.

It means ‘a house (in the greatest variation of applications)’; that is, used widely
for a lot of things, one of which is a place with an inside(-ward).

A CHAMBER or CHAMBERS: The original Hebrew word is ‘lishkah’

pronounced /lish-kaw’/. It means ‘a room in a building (whether for storage,
eating or lodging)’. It also has a synonym which is ‘nishkah’ pronounced /nish-
kaw’/ meaning ‘a cell’.
TREASURE or TREASURIES: The original Hebrew word is ‘owtsar’
pronounced /o-tsar/. It means ‘a depository’ or ‘a store’. The house in ‘treasure
house’ is ‘bayith’ in Hebrew which is used for ‘storehouse’ in Hebrew, too. So,
we can say that ‘treasure house’ is synonymous with ‘storehouse’. Semantics.
Same meaning but different words.

So, who and who stole? Eliashib and Tobiah.

‘And before this, Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the chamber of the
house of our God, was allied unto Tobiah: And he had prepared for him a great
chamber, where aforetime they laid the meat offerings, the frankincense, and the
vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, which was
commanded to be given to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the
offerings of the priests. But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two
and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after
certain days obtained I leave of the king: And I came to Jerusalem, and
understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber
in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth
all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. Then I commanded, and
they cleansed the chambers: and thither brought I again the vessels of the house
of God, with the meat offering and the frankincense. And I perceived that the
portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites and the singers,
that did the work, were fled every one to his field,’ Nehemiah 13:4-10.

Note that the content inside the storehouse was not money but rather
agricultural products. This thievery must become the norm before the Lord
burdened Malachi to write to them (the priests; does it make sense now?).

Again, why would God accuse the whole nation of robbing Him when it was
just the priests? Why punish the field workers when the priests were the only
ones guilty? I remember that Achan was guilty but God accused the whole
nation. ‘And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus
upon thy face? Israel hath sinned…’ Joshua 7:10-11. That is because God saw
Israel as one entity. What affects one part of the body affects all parts of the
body.
IF TITHE WAS NOT MONEY, WHAT WAS?

A. Tithe was/is agricultural. (Leviticus 27:30.)

B. Tithe was livestock, too. (Leviticus 27:32.)

C. To be given to the Levites because they had no inheritance. (Numbers 18:20-

21.)

D. To be shared with strangers, the fatherless and the widows. (Deuteronomy

14:28-29.)

E. To be per year since harvest is typically once a year. (Deuteronomy 26:12).

F. Not to be kept by both Jewish and Gentile believers. (Romans 7:4; James
2:10; to mention a few.)

Finally, I wish to correct some bogus claims that the children of Israel tithed
agricultural products and livestock because they did not have money (a form of
exchange). Before the Law…

A. Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah for four hundred shekels of silver
(Genesis 23:1-20).

B. Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver (Genesis 37:28).

C. Joseph gave his brothers free food and returned their money (Genesis 42:25).

In fact, the word ‘money’ appeared in TWENTY-SIX times in Genesis alone.

Oops!

IF NOT TITHING, THEN WHAT?

Giving!
A. Without necessity or compulsion but as everyone purposes in his heart (2
Corinthians 9:6-7).

B. As God has prospered one (1 Corinthians 16:2).

C. Bountifully (2 Corinthians 9:6).

Of course, I await criticism on this. However, make sure you come to the table
with an unprejudiced mind and motive, and verifiable proofs as
counterarguments.

Shalom!