Bob Thiel is back with his repeat article where he gets all prissy about Banned claiming tithing is no longer commanded. The fact still remains, tithing is not a New Covenant command. Bob Thiel and the improperly named "continuing" Church of God still continue to lie that it is because he still erroneously believes large parts of the Mosaic system are still binding on New Covenant Christians. That is the Armstrongist package. It is not what the apostles taught the churches.
Tithing as a required tenth (and sometimes two or three tenths) was Israel’s covenant tax for Levites, festivals, and the poor. The New Testament replaces that system with generous, voluntary, Spirit-prompted giving. Jesus did not install a Christian tithe. Paul never commanded one. The early churches did not practice one as law.
What Thiel actually teaches
Thiel’s CCOG statement of beliefs and his long article Tithing Questions and Some Answers are explicit. Tithes belong to God (Leviticus 27:30). Faithful Christians follow Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:23. Because the priesthood changed, tithes now go to “those representing Christ’s ministry” (Hebrews 7). They teach first tithe for the work, second tithe for feast travel and food, and third tithe in years 3 and 6 of a seven-year cycle for the poor. They apply Malachi 3:8–10 to Christians: withholding tithes is robbing God. They argue tithing predates Moses (Abraham and Jacob), so it cannot be “just Mosaic.” They insist it applies to all increase—wages, not only farm produce.
That is consistent Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong treated tithing as a living financial law. After the old Worldwide Church of God abandoned those teachings, remnant groups kept them. Thiel presents CCOG as the place the “most faithful” should send the money.
The arguments sound biblical until you put them in covenant context.
Thiel’s CCOG statement of beliefs and his long article Tithing Questions and Some Answers are explicit. Tithes belong to God (Leviticus 27:30). Faithful Christians follow Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:23. Because the priesthood changed, tithes now go to “those representing Christ’s ministry” (Hebrews 7). They teach first tithe for the work, second tithe for feast travel and food, and third tithe in years 3 and 6 of a seven-year cycle for the poor. They apply Malachi 3:8–10 to Christians: withholding tithes is robbing God. They argue tithing predates Moses (Abraham and Jacob), so it cannot be “just Mosaic.” They insist it applies to all increase—wages, not only farm produce.
That is consistent Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong treated tithing as a living financial law. After the old Worldwide Church of God abandoned those teachings, remnant groups kept them. Thiel presents CCOG as the place the “most faithful” should send the money.
The arguments sound biblical until you put them in covenant context.
What tithing actually was
Under Moses, Israel was a theocratic nation with a landless priestly tribe. Tithes supported Levites (Numbers 18), funded pilgrimage feasts (Deuteronomy 14:22–27), and every third year helped Levites, sojourners, orphans, and widows (Deuteronomy 14:28–29). Combined, the system was closer to 20–23% in some years than a neat 10%. It was tied to the land, the temple, and the Levitical order.
Abraham’s tenth to Melchizedek (Genesis 14) was a one-time gift from war spoils, not a standing tax on income. Jacob’s tenth (Genesis 28) was a vow. Neither is a law that binds the church. If “Abraham did it before Sinai” makes tithing a creation ordinance, the same logic would keep circumcision—which Abraham also practiced, and which the apostles explicitly refused to impose on Gentile believers (Acts 15; Galatians 5).
Jesus and Matthew 23:23
This is what Thiel imagines as his strongest-looking verse. Jesus tells Pharisees they tithe mint, dill, and cumin but neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness: “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
He was speaking to Jews still under the Mosaic covenant, before the cross. In the same discourse, He talks about the temple, oaths, and other law-keeping. He Himself was “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). He also told a healed leper to offer the gift Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4). No serious reader treats that as a standing command for Christians to bring animals to a temple that no longer exists.
Jesus fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4). After His death, the ceremonial and civic scaffolding of Israel’s covenant—priesthood, sacrifices, food laws as covenant markers, and the tithe that funded that system—does not transfer automatically to the multi-ethnic church.
Hebrews 7 does not re-enact the tithe
Armstrongists lean hard on Hebrews 7. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek; Levi, still “in Abraham’s loins,” paid tithes through him; therefore the greater priesthood (Christ’s) still receives tithes.
That is not the author’s point. Hebrews 7 argues that Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to Levi’s, that Jesus is priest forever after that order, and that “when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (Hebrews 7:12). The next verses say the former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (7:18–19). The whole letter is about the old covenant becoming obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Using a historical illustration of Abraham’s gift to prove a mandatory 10% church tax reverses the argument.
Under Moses, Israel was a theocratic nation with a landless priestly tribe. Tithes supported Levites (Numbers 18), funded pilgrimage feasts (Deuteronomy 14:22–27), and every third year helped Levites, sojourners, orphans, and widows (Deuteronomy 14:28–29). Combined, the system was closer to 20–23% in some years than a neat 10%. It was tied to the land, the temple, and the Levitical order.
Abraham’s tenth to Melchizedek (Genesis 14) was a one-time gift from war spoils, not a standing tax on income. Jacob’s tenth (Genesis 28) was a vow. Neither is a law that binds the church. If “Abraham did it before Sinai” makes tithing a creation ordinance, the same logic would keep circumcision—which Abraham also practiced, and which the apostles explicitly refused to impose on Gentile believers (Acts 15; Galatians 5).
Jesus and Matthew 23:23
This is what Thiel imagines as his strongest-looking verse. Jesus tells Pharisees they tithe mint, dill, and cumin but neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness: “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
He was speaking to Jews still under the Mosaic covenant, before the cross. In the same discourse, He talks about the temple, oaths, and other law-keeping. He Himself was “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). He also told a healed leper to offer the gift Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4). No serious reader treats that as a standing command for Christians to bring animals to a temple that no longer exists.
Jesus fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4). After His death, the ceremonial and civic scaffolding of Israel’s covenant—priesthood, sacrifices, food laws as covenant markers, and the tithe that funded that system—does not transfer automatically to the multi-ethnic church.
Hebrews 7 does not re-enact the tithe
Armstrongists lean hard on Hebrews 7. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek; Levi, still “in Abraham’s loins,” paid tithes through him; therefore the greater priesthood (Christ’s) still receives tithes.
That is not the author’s point. Hebrews 7 argues that Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to Levi’s, that Jesus is priest forever after that order, and that “when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (Hebrews 7:12). The next verses say the former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (7:18–19). The whole letter is about the old covenant becoming obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Using a historical illustration of Abraham’s gift to prove a mandatory 10% church tax reverses the argument.
Hebrews 7:
14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.[a]
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
If Hebrews 7 reimposed tithing, it is strange that the rest of the New Testament never tells a single congregation to do it.
What the apostles actually commanded
Paul organized a collection for poor saints in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1–2; 2 Corinthians 8–9). The principles are:
- Set something aside on the first day of the week, as one may prosper.
- Give according to what you have, not what you do not have.
- Give not reluctantly or under compulsion.
- God loves a cheerful giver.
- Sowing bountifully and sparingly have consequences.
That silence is not an accident. If a 10% (or 23%) legal requirement remained, the man who fought circumcision so fiercely would have said so.
The New Covenant promise is the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8), not a recycled Levitical payroll. Believers are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14). That does not mean stinginess. It means the floor is no longer a tax bracket and the motive is no longer “or you are robbing God.”
History does not rescue the doctrine
The first-century church supported ministers and the poor by freewill gifts and shared possessions (Acts 2, 4; Didache). Second-century writers such as Irenaeus contrasted Jewish constraint with Christian liberty: Christians give freely, not the lesser portion. The Didascalia said Christians were not bound to tithes and firstfruits in the old way.
Mandatory ecclesiastical tithing as a fixed percentage enforceable by church (and later civil) law is a later development—clearly visible in sixth-century Western councils such as Mâcon (585), not in the apostolic age. Thiel’s claim that “the original catholic church” tithed as CCOG does overreads later practice back onto the New Testament.
Why the Armstrongist version is especially burdensome
Even among tithe-advocates, three full tithes is a minority reconstruction. Many scholars see overlapping descriptions of the same tithe used in different ways, not a stacked 20–23% annual levy plus feast travel. Binding that reconstruction on Christians, then directing it to one remnant organization as the storehouse, turns a disputed Old Testament administrative question into a test of loyalty.
Thiel notes he takes no salary. That is personally commendable and irrelevant to whether the law exists. A teacher can be unpaid and still be wrong about the covenant, which he consistently is.
Even among tithe-advocates, three full tithes is a minority reconstruction. Many scholars see overlapping descriptions of the same tithe used in different ways, not a stacked 20–23% annual levy plus feast travel. Binding that reconstruction on Christians, then directing it to one remnant organization as the storehouse, turns a disputed Old Testament administrative question into a test of loyalty.
Thiel notes he takes no salary. That is personally commendable and irrelevant to whether the law exists. A teacher can be unpaid and still be wrong about the covenant, which he consistently is.
What Christians are commanded to do
Give. Support those who labor in the word. Help the poor, especially the household of faith. Do it regularly, proportionally, secretly where possible, and cheerfully. For many people a tenth is a wise starting discipline. For some it is too little; for some in hardship it would be crushing. The New Testament refuses to freeze that into a statute with a curse attached.
Malachi 3 was a rebuke to post-exilic Judah for starving the temple system God had actually commanded them. Quoting it as if every paycheck that does not send 10% to Grover Beach is temple robbery is covenant confusion.
Tithing as Armstrongism defines it is not a New Covenant command. Generous giving is. The difference is not a loophole for greed. It is the difference between living under a fulfilled law and living as people who already belong to the One who owns everything—and who gave more than a tenth.
No comments:
Post a Comment