Part 5

This brings us to answer that provoking misrepresentation of the position of tithers which claims that men ought to give more than the tithe and that love to Christ should lead to the consecration of all to Him. I do not know of any tither who feels that the tenth is all that he ought to give. Most pastors know that if extra money is wanted, the tithers are not the last to respond. Further, I have never heard such doctrine advocated by any tither. We persistently say that we are dealing with the minimum, not with the maximum, not with the outgoings of hearts full of love to Christ, but with those who are robbing God of even His minimum and are thus guilty of the awful crime of covetousness, which the New Testament places among the vilest of crimes and says that it will shut out of the kingdom. The fifth chapter of I Corinthians clearly teaches that the covetous brother is to be shut out of the fellowship of Christians, even in this life. How does the treatment of the rich man by many churches and communities square with this plain teaching? The early Fathers were very faithful in teaching concerning the crime of covetousness, following in the footsteps of the Apostles and of Christ Himself. How about the minister who considers himself above the business of mentioning money matters to the congregation? This rank Phariseeism needs to be driven out of the minds of ministers and theological teachers who train ministers. If they spoke on this subject as often as Christ did, they would need to preach on it about once a month. Mr. Kane’s experience wherein after three heroic efforts, he only succeeded in finding theological professors and students in about half the seminaries in this country and Canada who were willing to receive literature which he offered to furnish gratis, speaks of an awful perversion of Scripture teaching on this subject and a failure to grasp the vital questions of Christian life which it touches. Is it any wonder that there is a constant “drain of the treasury” as Augustine said? Wrestle with it as we may, the consecrate-all-to-the-Lord and all such plans, have proved a dismal failure in respect to bringing “meat” into God’s house, and the crying need of the hour is money to send workers into all the world to preach the gospel. Whatever be your scheme for getting the money, you know, brother pastor and fellow-workers, that the great hindrance to enlargement of the Church’s work is money to meet necessary expenditures. Some one always bobs up with the mystical dictum that it is prayer, or consecration, or something to that effect. But that is only beating the Devil around the bush. For the promised result of the prayer, or the consecration, or whatever one may suggest, is that money will be forthcoming. So after all it is money that must be gotten, by whatsoever means one may employ.

The giving of all to the Lord is the only New Testament method which is offered us as an alternative. I am free to say that it has failed to meet the case not only in our age, and in the age of the Fathers who rang the changes on it, but I am persuaded also that it did not meet the case in the days of the Apostles. It must always be remembered that it was voluntary, as Peter said to Ananias, and though voluntary, it did not fail to present difficulties very early in the history of the Church, as the sixth chapter of Acts shows. Again it should be remembered that the very fact that Paul was instructed to call for a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem proves two things at least. That the needs of the Church were not met by this voluntary communism, and that this communism had not been adopted elsewhere to any great extent, else the appeal to people to lay aside for this free-will offering as God had prospered them would have been a piece of pious nonsense.

The Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. III., p. 668) gives an interesting bit of evidence as to the effect of this movement. We read that “against the tendency prevailing in Essene and Christian circles to sell all one had and ‘give to the poor’ in order to have ‘treasure in heaven’ (Matt. 19:21), the rabbis at the Synod in Usha ordained that ‘no one should give away more than the fifth of his fortune lest from independence he may lapse into a state of dependence’” (Ket. 50 a). While the evil effect of anything Christian is apt to be overstated by these Jewish writers, still may it not be that here we have proof that communism, tried under the most favorable circumstances, as it certainly was under the early Church management, fails to meet the case, and that Christ’s saying, “The poor always ye have with you,” was still true and even more emphasized under this method of social life? The fact seems to stand out even on the pages of the book of Acts with special emphasis that such a method, with the very best management, does not take away the problem of the dependent, but really intensifies it.

The Apostle Paul seems to have had to deal with this tendency toward abuse of charity and in doing so laid down some very fundamental propositions to which the Church ought always to give heed. “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” II Thess. 3:10-12. “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I Tim. 5:8. These positive teachings certainly argue that Paul did not approve of the communistic plan, for how could one eat his own bread or provide for his own household, if he had put all into the common fund? In short, Paul, as the great organizer of the Church, does not give a single hint that he approved of such a method. All his statements are emphatic on the other side. Even his own custom of working for his living argues his disapproval of the communistic idea. This should be borne in mind by those who are so sure that Christian Socialism as they choose to call it, will solve all the problems respecting the poor. Personally, I believe that Paul’s method is the better one and will come nearer than any other to the solution.

The question is often asked, why does not the New Testament say more about the tithe, if it is still the universal law? The answer to this has usually been, that all the peoples to whom the apostles preached had been accustomed to give at least a tenth for religious purposes and they found no particular need to lay emphasis upon what was a universal practice. Also that the enthusiastic support through voluntary communism and other large free-will offerings made it unnecessary for them to dwell upon it. These answers have weight and might be counted sufficient, if it were not that they seem to assume that the New Testament is silent on this great question. Attention has been called to Christ’s commendation of the tithing principle and to Paul’s appeal to the law. But it seems to me that not enough is made of the treatment of this subject in the one book in which we would naturally expect it, that is, in the book of Hebrews. The writer was trying to convince these Hebrews of the incomparably superior character of Christ and His priesthood to that to which they were so attached. We would naturally suppose that here, if anywhere, we would have some discussion of the tribute to this great High Priest and that is just what we have in the seventh chapter.

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.

No one has ever been the worse off for doing his duty toward God. “The Path to Wealth” by “A Blacksmith” contains a chapter of voluntary testimonies given at a public meeting. Twenty-nine testimonies were given either directly or indirectly. The occupations of the persons were as follows: Five not named, six ministers, four farmers, two merchants, and one each of the following: General agent, Y. M. C. A. secretary, student, clerk, lady stenographer, principal of schools, shoemaker, young lady telegraph operator who had a mother and sister to support, and a missionary from India, who told the story of one of his native helpers, Bhelsari Naiah, who had been tithing for three months when this conversation took place. “Well, Bhelsari, how does the tithing system work?” “Capitally, sir.” “Ah, how is that? You were always complaining of being hard up, and even in debt, when you used your whole income for self; now, you give one-tenth to God, you have no complaints.” “Ah, sir, the nine-tenths, with God’s blessing, is better far than the ten-tenths used to be without it.” I have received many testimonies to the same effect. Mr. Thomas Kane, of Chicago, has had thousands and thousands of such replies, so that we may safely say that Bhelsari’s answer must stand as the voice of general experience.

Not only have men tried it for themselves, but it has been tried in business where firms have kept a strict account of the Lord’s part and disbursed it for charity and have not found the Lord’s promise wanting. Of late years it has come to be a prominent part in the system of finance of various congregations. What is known as the Tithe Covenant Plan originated in Wesley Chapel in Cincinnati about eight years ago. The central idea of this plan is based upon the literal interpretation of Mal. 3:10, “Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, etc.” The members bring in every week in an unmarked envelope the tithe of their income for that week and all is counted together and then distributed by the officers of the Church according to a previously arranged schedule. This congregation, being a downtown one, was about to give up from lack of support, when this plan was started and now it is one of the most active churches in that city and is the most liberal of any church in the city or conference in its support of charity and missions.