The Concept of the Tithe

The concept of the tithe, the giving of ten-percent of something, paid either as a contribution to a religious organization or compulsory tax to the government was a widespread practice in the Ancient Near East. It is found in documents all over Mesopotamia, not just in Israel. The Old Testament shows that it was practiced by the Patriarchs even before the Law of Moses was given (Genesis 14:18-20; 28:12-22). The Law of Moses established the tithe in Israel which functioned more like taxes and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within towns" to support the Levites and assist the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28). So the tithe in Israel was specifically directed towards supporting the Levitical priesthood and the Temple system. This is why no specific command to tithe appears in the New Testament. Without the priesthood/Temple system, the tithe becomes meaningless, certainly not mandatory.

However, the New Testament does promote giving while not requiring a tithe. 2 Corinthians 9:7 talks about giving cheerfully, 2 Corinthians 8:12 encourages giving what you can afford, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2 discusses giving weekly (although this is a saved amount for Jerusalem), 1 Timothy 5:17–18 exhorts supporting the financial needs of Christian workers, Acts 11:29 promotes feeding the hungry wherever they may be and James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.

So while tithing is not required for Christians, the New Testament encourages giving for the purposes of the Kingdom of God. If someone wants to tithe as the basis for their giving, that is fine as well. There is nothing that prohibits a Christian from doing so. Just like there is nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating kosher if they so desire.

Now churches are always encouraging tithing by citing Malachi 3:8-10:

“’Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, “How have we robbed You?” In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.’”

Again, I think applying these verses is somewhat dubious. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Churches and pastors, cite Malachi 3 all you want … BUT, please be sure to cite Malachi 1 first. Before God even gets to the people tithing in chapter 3, he precedes it in chapter 1 with condemnation of the priests.

“‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, ‘How have we defiled You?’ In that you say, ‘The table of the Lord is to be despised.’ But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?” says the Lord of hosts. “But now will you not entreat God’s favor, that He may be gracious to us? With such an offering on your part, will He receive any of you kindly?” says the Lord of hosts. “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you are profaning it, in that you say, ‘The table of the Lord is defiled, and as for its fruit, its food is to be despised.’ You also say, ‘My, how tiresome it is!’ And you disdainfully sniff at it,” says the Lord of hosts, “and you bring what was taken by robbery and what is lame or sick; so you bring the offering! Should I receive that from your hand?” says the Lord. “But cursed be the swindler who has a male in his flock and vows it, but sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord, for I am a great King,” says the Lord of hosts, “and My name is feared among the nations.”

Here God is stating that the priests are taking the offerings, keeping the choice offerings for themselves, and only sacrificing the blemished offerings to God. If a pastor is going to apply Malachi 3 as a principle to the church then he or she must also apply the principle of Malachi 1: don’t mismanage the money that the people bring in as their tithes and offerings.

St. Francis, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Last night I finished reading St. Francis by one of my favorite authors, Nikos Kazantzakis. One of the distinguishing characteristics of early 20^th century literature was the belief that modernity had divested

contemporary life of its spirituality and that the traditional paradigms and mental structures of comprehending and expressing faith had been forever extinguished. Some writers attempted to push forward with a secular and atheistic conception of the world. Other writers understood that there was a specific and undeniable need in humanity for the spiritual (however it was conceived) and sought to replenish it while still acknowledging that Western civilization could not return to its previous patterns. In this latter way we see various authors trying various methods: James Joyce (Greek mythology and Viconian philosophy), T.S. Eliot (fertility mythology, Buddhism, and Christianity), C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien (modern reconception of medieval Christianity), and Kazantzakis (Greek Mythology, Christianity, Buddhism, and Nietzschean mythology).

Kazantzakis was not a Christian but he had a healthy respect for the Faith and Jesus himself. Christ and Christianity are constant themes and subjects of his writings. His book, Saint Francis, is a fictionalized biography of the widely venerated Christian figure. Its subject is a familiar one for Kazantzakis readers: the anguished expression of the eternal struggle between the spirit and flesh. Indeed, though this is a fine book, the subject matter has been treated by Kazantzakis better elsewhere. And the portrait of Francis is more manic and passionately jutting that the gentle, humble, and spirit-filled Francis that history records. Instead, Kazantzakis turns the saint into a very fine 20th century existentialist character but without the 13^th century cultural underpinnings to make the figure credible to the story. This is unfortunate and a major flaw since he was able to achieve a perfect symbiosis of modern existentialism and 1^st century reality with his portrait of Jesus in The Last Temptation. Kazantzakis should have studied Thomas Mann’s The Holy Sinner in preparation for his book.

Nevertheless, despite some misgivings, the book itself is an enjoyable read while still not reaching the heights of his other books. Kazantzakis postulates that the life of a genuine seeker of God is one of constant crucifixion. It is a life of self-denial and of total sacrifice of the ego at the altar of the divine. St. Francis embodies this sacrifice in all that he does in his life thru poverty, prayer, stewardship, alms-giving, and ultimately stigmata.

I don’t think this book is for everyone, even those interested in attaining a greater spirituality through self-denial. I seriously doubt that those interested in the historical St. Francis of Assisi will get anything out of it. I think this is more a book for those already interested in the writings of Kazantzakis.

Justice and the Covenantal Law: Reflections on MLKJr Day

In his open “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963), Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes the Book of Amos in order to address the moral laxity of his fellow Southern clergymen during the Civil Rights era, both those who saw his non-violent methods as extreme and those who thought his methods were not violent enough. The quote in full:

“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

The Book of Amos was one of the earliest prophetic books to be written (between 765 and 760 CE). Amos, an older contemporary of Hosea and Isaiah, lived in the kingdom of Judah but preached in the northern kingdom of Israel. He was not a professional prophet but a rich, educated landowner. His written work expresses a deep concern for social justice, but, as I would like to point, a very specific understanding of social justice.

Amos articulates a standard conception of what creational monotheism means to the world and to Israel. Yahweh is the creator god and is thus the god of all people, Jews and Gentile alike. God expects the same level of moral and social purity of the all nation as he does Israel. God shows no partiality. Israel liberated and elected Israel so that they could make him known throughout the world. Their special calling is that of vocation and does not give them liberty to ignore ethical and social concerns. Indeed, election by God means that those elected have a duty to live according to the responsibilities and purposes clearly taught in the covenant. Part of those responsibilities is care for the poor. So important is this that the book of Amos elevates social justice and morality above religious practices and ritual observances.

The context of Amos 5:24 is the prophetic denunciation of the “sacrifices and meal offerings” of a people who have failed to keep the covenant, which is constituted by justice, fairness, and concern for the poor. As a wealthy landowner himself, Amos condemns the rulers and the rich for burdening the poor with taxes and regulation while exempting others through bribes. What’s more, after having behaved unfairly, these elites then proceed to publicly display their devotion to God through ritual sacrifices and observances. Yahweh will have none of that. He will not honor their sacrifices. He will not be pleased with their outward show of devotion. Instead, he will bring judgement and exile upon them. This prophecy was fulfilled in 720 BCE.

Yet when progressive Christians quote and echo Amos and the other prophets concerning “justice”, they too often divorce the term from its biblical context, preferring to use it a vague, abstract, philosophical designation to be used for whatever societal issue they themselves deem “unjust”. These supposed “injustices” are derived more from personal preferences, biased worldviews, societal trends, philosophical fads, causes célèbres, and economic ignorance than from the biblical witness. Indeed, progressive Christians will denounce as biblically unjust the Bible itself. But one cannot talk about the justice of the Bible apart the covenantal context. When Amos and the other prophets use the term “justice” they are speaking specifically about the covenant between Yahweh and Israel, the Law (Torah) from which it derives, and the commands contained within that Law. Amos is not speaking about an abstract sense of justice for which each successive generation can make-up for themselves as their preferences see fit. He’s talking about very specific commands encompassing the whole of the Law (Torah). Fairness for the poor, widows, orphans, and homeless derives from the Law. Now … what that fairness looks like, how these principles are applied, how it manifests itself for each generation may differ, BUT these applied principles should not contradict the commands of the Bible from which the principles stem. This is why when we consider justice we must always go back to the Bible for what that looks like. Otherwise “justice” will manifest itself as self-serving preferences reflecting the biases and vices of our fluid worldview. History shows that such “justice” ultimately favors the strong and harms the weak.

Weeping and Restoration: The Use of Jeremiah 31:15-17 in Matthew 2:18

While studying the book of Jeremiah, I came across the passage 31:15-17:

“Thus says the Lord, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘and they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘and your children will return to their own territory.’”

The first verse (v. 15) is famous got its inclusion by Matthew in his account of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. In seeking to kill the child Jesus, Herod sends forces into Bethlehem to kill all the children under the age of 2 years (Matthew 2:16-17). Matthew crowns this episode with the following:

“Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more’” (2:18).

One of the questions people have is what Matthew is doing inserting these verses into this particular story. When Jeremiah wrote this oracle he was specifically referring to those from the Kingdom of Israel who were deported by the Assyrians in 760 BCE. This is indicated by the references to Ephraim in verses 18 and 20 of this chapter and the surrounding mentions of Israel and Jacob in both chapters 30 and 31. Jeremiah’s specific intention was to point to the calamity of the Exile and not to predict Herod’s slaughter in 6-4 BCE. But if this is the case, then what is Matthew’s point in including these verses from Jeremiah in his account? I think the answer lies in the second half of the original passage in Jeremiah, verses 16-17:

“‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘and they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘and your children will return to their own territory.’”

I think in quoting verse 15 and linking it with his narrative, Matthew was pointing to the idea of the overall passage and, indeed, to the surrounding chapters (30-33) in which God promises restoration from Exile for his people. I’ve written before that the Exile was the one of the defining events in the history of Israel. God’s people had been deported from the Promise Land, the Temple destroyed and God’s presence left, the Davidic line ended, and pagans ruled – and all because God’s people had repeatedly sinned, rejected the prophets, and refused offers of forgiveness for repentance. But even after the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE when the exiled Jews were permitted to return to their homeland, there was still a belief that the full exile had not ended. Yahweh had not returned to Zion. The land was still being ruled by pagans. The Spirit had not been poured out. God had not yet forgiven the sins. One of the main arguments of the New Testament writers is that the coming of Jesus, his mission, death and resurrection meant the end of Exile and the forgiveness of sins, that God had turned to Zion, that evil had been defeated.

Therefore, when Matthew is quoting Jeremiah 31:15-17, he is not stating that Jeremiah predicted Herod’s slaughter of the children. Instead, he is pointing to the entire idea of the passage, indicating that, yes, God’s people have wept over the loss of their children before, but now the comfort that Jeremiah predicted has come true. God is truly restoring his people. Yahweh has returned to Zion. Sins are forgiven. The Spirit is poured out. The prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled.

Jeremiah: Life, Work, and Writings

Last night I finished reading John Bright’s commentary on Jeremiah (The Anchor Bible Commentary). This was an excellent book, one of the best commentaries I’ve ever read. I thought I would give some general overview of the prophet and his work.

Jeremiah was born into a priestly family from the Benjamite village of Anathoth. He had his call to the prophetic vocation as a youth (626 BCE), a call he was reluctant to take and with which he himself never seems to have reconciled. He seems to have been most influenced by the book of Deuteronomy and the prophet Hosea, but also Amos and first Isaiah. One of his earliest visions (if not the first) was the ultimate impending doom facing God’s people for their sins. This prophecy set the tone and mission for most of Jeremiah’s life and career. Because of the certainty of destruction, he neither married nor had children. He also abstained from many of the joys of the life, setting his own body up as a living example of the immediate nation’s future. A life of mourning.

Jeremiah had visions, performed prophetic acts, dictated oracles, and wrote both poetry and prose. Though his writings fell under the general theme of the coming Exile, there was a lot of diversity within that subject. What we have as the Book of Jeremiah is a collection of various material written by and about the prophet, probably built around the nucleus of the scroll Jeremiah originally constructed of his early prophetic sayings and which was burned by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36). The book includes oracles concerning Judah and Jerusalem (people, prophets, government, etc.), oracles concerning the judgeemnt of surrounding nations (Jeremiah 46-51), personal confessions, and biographical episodes written by another hand, possibly Jeremiah’s friend and associate Baruch. Unfortunately, during the extended assembling process, with too many cooks in the kitchen, the material in the Book of Jeremiah is largely disorganized. I appreciate John Bright’s efforts at remedying some of the confusion.

Throughout the early parts of his ministry, Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles about the coming destruction from Babylon went largely unheeded (the prophecies concerning the Temple [Jeremiah 7, 21] and the Valley of Gehinnom [Jeremiah 7, 19, 22] are two of my favorites). Indeed, he frequently received persecution from the people, priests, government officials, and other prophets because of his dire warnings. There were a minority of people from all strata of society (including government officials) who took Jeremiah’s warnings seriously and sought to protect him and his associates from persecution. However, this minority, even at high levels of leadership in Judah, was unable to divert the nation and government from destruction. Even as the prophecy began to come true, Jeremiah’s further warnings and advice continued to be unheeded.

Jeremiah seems to have resented his life and calling. It was something he never wanted. He was called to proclaim absolute destruction upon his society, culture, nation – everything he knew – without hope of divergence. He knew that few would listen to him. He knew he would be persecuted. When persecution hit and he cried out to God, Yahweh told him to expect more of the same. Jeremiah continued praying for his people and nation, but God continued telling him to stop because it wouldn’t do any good. In his confessional poetry, Jeremiah empties himself out before God, weeping because of his lot, praying for vengeance upon his enemies, and even accusing Yahweh himself of unfaithfulness (Jer. 15:5-21).

Not all of the Jeremiah’s oracles were entirely negative. Despite the national disaster of the Exile, Jeremiah also proclaimed that Yahweh would one day restore his people, bringing them back, forgiving their sins, and establishing a new covenant with them (Jeremiah 30-31). While he himself never saw this restoration, he nevertheless was certain of it. If Jeremiah was right about the destruction of Israel, he would be right about its reconstruction. If Yahweh spoke Exile, Exile it would be. If Yahweh spoke Restoration, Restoration it would be. God will do what he says he will do. That is his righteousness. That is his covenant-faithfulness. That is hope. See Jeremiah 23:6.

After the assassination of Gedaliah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah was carried off to Egypt against his will by the remaining Judeans fearful of the wrath of Babylon. He probably spent the remainder of his life there.

Top Ten Books of 2016

The Assault, by Harry Mulisch

Black Snow, by Mikhail Bulgakov

The Challenge of Jesus, by N.T. Wright

The Investigation, by Peter Weiss

Joshua: The Anchor Bible Commentary, by Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright

Journeying, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Marginalia on Casanova: St. Orpheus Breviary, by Miklos Szentkuthy

New and Collected Poems, by Geoffrey Hill

The Powers Trilogy, by Walter Wink

The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright