How we teach, understand and apply Scripture is fundamental to the Christian life. Many practices we see in the Christian church today are founded on really questionable interpretations of Scripture, and therefore do not bring us into the liberty Jesus calls us to, but bondage.
Over the years, I have heard many different teachings on Christian tithing, most of those teachings are based around Abraham’s tithe and also some of the Old Covenant laws God gave to Israel. Usually, I find that I am not able to reconcile the clear meaning of Scripture with what those Scriptures are used to teach. That discrepancy has prompted this article. It is by no means complete and there are of course many more things to say about tithing and the Scriptures referenced here, however, I hope that whatever your practice regarding financial giving into the Kingdom, this article helps clarify things and possibly even remove some bondage found in out of context or misapplied Scriptural principles.
Abram’s Tithe
I will start with Abram tithing to Melchizedek because this is one of the key scriptures used to talk about tithing today. It is used to establish the fact that the tithe precedes the Old Covenant and is therefore still valid outside the context of the Old, i.e., in the New Covenant. This is often expressed, “The tithe has always belonged to God.”
Firstly, just to clear this up, you cannot say Abram tithed insofar as we understand the word “tithing” today. A better way to say this, for the sake of clarity, is that Abram “gave a tenth”. Tithing in today’s world implies a regular practise and that’s not what Abram did. It is misleading to say that Abram tithed.
Who was Melchizedek?
I quote here extensively from Russ Kelly’s article on this matter because it deals with the issue in real depth and very conclusively. He wrote a PHD thesis on tithing and the full content is published online on his website, there is a lot of detail and many references for further study: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/
We make a lot of Melchizedek who is mentioned briefly in the account of Abram tithing. Here are some points we forget, which causes us to place an inordinate emphasis on Melchizedek as a priest.
Abram didn’t “need” Melchizedek to worship or tithe.
Abraham, as head of his household, was a priest himself, and, as such, built altars and worshiped God directly (Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 15:9-18). He did not require a priest like Melchizedek to intercede for him to God. Like Arab clan leaders of our time, as his family’s priest he would make direct contributions of charity to the poor as he served God throughout his nomadic travels. Proper exegesis should begin the discussion of verse 20 at least at verse 16, instead of verse 18, and should continue it beyond verse 20, to at least verse 21.
Who was Melchizedek a priest of anyway?
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, “The name of this mysterious person means either ‘king of righteousness,’ or ‘my king is righteousness,’ or ‘my king is Zedek.’ Zedek is the Hebrew word for ‘righteousness’ and also the name of a Canaanite deity. Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem, which is the shortened form of ‘Urusalem,’ ‘city of peace,’ identified with Jerusalem. ‘Shalom’ is the Hebrew word for ‘peace’ and ‘Shalem’ probably was the Canaanite god of peace. This kindly priest-king, recognizing Abram’s nobility and worth, supplied refreshment and sustenance for the weary warrior and his men. These gifts were tokens of friendship and hospitality.”
The preceding quotation opened my eyes to do extensive research on the ignored Phoenician and Canaanite pantheon. Oddly, this statement comes from a commentary re-published for Southwestern Company (Southern Baptist) by Moody Press in 1968. The chapter on Genesis is written by Kyle M. Yates, Sr., Th. D., Ph. D., Professor of Old Testament, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which is Southern Baptist. If, as Yates claims, Melchizedek worshiped the Canaanite gods, Zedek and Salem, then, logically, El Elyon must have also been a Canaanite god!
The New Bible Commentary: “There is nothing mysterious about him in spite of the interpretation placed by some on Heb. vii, 3. He was king of some Semitic clan, which still occupied Salem, before the Jebusites captured it. There was never an utter extinction of the knowledge of God in the world, and here, too, God had preserved some knowledge of Himself.”
The Matthew Henry Commentary: “The rabbin, and most of our rabbinical writers, conclude that Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah, who was king and priest to those who descended from him, according to the patriarchal model. But this is not at all probable…. The most commonly received opinion is that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, that reigned in Salem, and kept up the true religion there; but, if so, why his name should occur here only in all the story of Abram, and why Abram should have altars of his own and not attend the altars of his neighbor Melchizedek who was greater than he, seem unaccountable.”
Melchizedek’s Jerusalem Was a Semitic Canaanite City
Although we subconsciously want to associate Melchizedek’s Jerusalem with that of David’s Jerusalem over one thousand years later, this is simply not the case. The Tell Mardikh tablets (c. 2300 B.C.) contain the name “Urusalimum” and hundreds of other places and personal names in the region. The name probably originally meant “founded by the god Shalem,” a goddess (of dawn?) of the Amorites, a consort of Zedek, that is, Jupiter.
When the Jebusites arrived they did not select the best location because the higher place above Kidron was already occupied by a Canaanite temple which the Jebusites did not want to displace. Archaeologists claim that the Jebusite fort dated back to at least 2000 B.C. which is the time period of Abraham’s tribute to Melchizedek.
Since the name of “Jerusalem” was known prior to the Jebusite occupation, it probably originally referred to the high hill of Melchizedek’s temple beside the Valley of Zedek. The Jebusites are mentioned as early as Numbers 13:29. They called their city “Jebus” or “Jebusi.” David captured it and named it “The City of David” (Josh. 15:8; 18:16, 28; Judg. 19:10; 2 Sam. 5:8; 1 Chron. 11:4). Evidently the original name of “Jerusalem” regained prominence under David. Again, Shalim was the name of a Canaanite god.
The point of this discussion is that the place which Melchizedek called “Salem” was his pagan Canaanite residence and was not at that time God’s holy city. Even the term “Zion” was originally a Jebusite name for their fort (2 Sam. 5:7).
“Most High God” Was Also a Common Canaanite Title for Both “El” and “Baal”
14:18…and he was the priest of the most high God.
14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed is Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;
14:20 and blessed is the most high God, which has delivered your enemies into your hand.
A seminary textbook on the principles of interpretation reminds us, “A good interpretation should not depend so heavily on inferences that it cannot stand on its own without the help of theoretical construct…. Did our theory about the historical situation control our reading of the text, or did the text itself suggest the theory?” Relevant to this chapter, does the common conclusion that Melchizedek’s “Most High God” must be Jehovah rest on solid historical proof, or does it rest on the pre-conceived ideas of what interpreters and commentators would like it to mean? It would also be wrong to use Hebrew 7’s “typical” application to change the “historical” meaning of Genesis 14.
It is extremely important for a correct understanding of Genesis 14 to realize that “Most High God,” or “God the Most High,” (Hebrew: “El Elyon”) was a common Canaanite designation for Baal, and even his father, El. Again, neither sentence-structure nor context require this identification to point exclusively to Jehovah, as most commentators conclude. It is unfortunate that “El Elyon” has been “translated,” rather than merely being “transliterated,” and left as “El Elyon.” This error easily confuses the reader and encourages the reader towards a conclusion which is not apparent in the phrase itself. While a casual Canaanite reader would quickly identify the phrase with “El” or “Baal,” a casual contemporary westerner would conclude that the term identifies Jehovah, or Yahweh. A comparative problem has been eliminated by Bible translators who have wisely chosen to retain the name “Baal,” instead of translating it as “Lord.”
Fausset’s Bible Dictionary comments on the name “El Elyon” by saying, “The Phoenicians so named their chief god according to Sanchoniathon in Enseb. Praep. Event., doubtless from primitive revelation.”[8]
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Like El Elyon, “Baal” (Babylonian “Bel”), the supreme Canaanite god, was also called “Lord,” “master,” and “possessor of heaven and earth.”[9] At least from Melchizedek’s point of view, “Baal” is equally a logical, though usually ignored, meaning of “El Elyon.” To further confuse the names, there are also sources which claim that “Elyon” was the grandfather of “El” and that an eighth century Aramaic treaty stele even describes “El” and “Elyon” as two distinct deities. I encourage anybody who is interested in this study to make a trip to a large library and research the religions of Phoenicia and Canaan. Daniel, the book of Gentile prophecy, refers to God in Aramaic almost exclusively as “the Most High God,” or “Most High” (Dan. 3:26; 4:17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21). Lucifer schemed to sit upon the throne of “the Most High” (Isa. 14:13-14). “The Most High God” is a name that relates to ALL nations, ALL heaven, and ALL earth—not just Israel. (Compare 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 18:13; 21:7; 47:2; 83:18; 87:5; 91:1-2, 9; 92:1, 8; 97:9).
“El Elyon” Could Betray Melchizedek as Ignorant of Yahweh
First, Melchizedek did not know God as “Yahweh,” that is, “LORD,” or “Jehovah.” It is important to recognize that Melchizedek called himself the priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God” in verses 18-20 and did NOT call himself the priest of “Yahweh, the Most High God,” as did Abraham to the king of Sodom in verse 22.
Those special to God knew His name! “Yahweh,” the “LORD,” is the special name through which God first revealed himself in Genesis 2:4 to Adam and Eve. God spoke to Cain as Yahweh in 4:6, to Noah in 5:29; 6:3; 7:1; 8:20 and 9:26; to Nimrod in 10:8-9; to those at the tower of Babel in 11:5; and to Abram in 12:1. The name, “Yahweh,” occurs over 160 times in Genesis alone. Worshipers of all ages, especially those in Abraham’s time, were very particular about knowing the NAME of the god to whom they prayed. Because of this Scriptural fact, it is almost inconceivable that Melchizedek could have been a true priest of the true God and yet not know his special name! Therefore, I believe that Melchizedek’s ignorance about the true name of Yahweh should disqualify him from being one who carried the name from Noah’s time.
Second, Melchizedek might have been identifying himself as a Semitic Canaanite by calling himself priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God.” As just mentioned, this reference, “Most High God,” was almost universally used by non-Hebrew Semitic people to designate their concept of “Baal,” or even his father “El,” the bull-god and father of the Canaanite pantheon.
“El,” the Hebrew word most often translated as “God” in our Bibles, is a generic reference word and is not necessarily a “name.” “El” can just as easily mean “god” with a little “g,” “the might of nature,” or even “an angel” (Exod. 34:14; Deut. 32:12; Judg. 9:46; Isa. 44:10). “El” (Strong’s 410) and its root words, uwl (Strong’s 193) and ah-yil (Strong’s 352), all basically mean “might” and “strength.” As previously mentioned, any Canaanite would immediately associate “El Elyon” with either “El” or “Baal”—instead of the Hebrew’s Yahweh.[10]
Until Genesis 14, God had identified himself as “Elohim” and “Yahweh.” He subsequently identified himself as “Almighty” in 17:1; 35:11; 43:14; and 48:3. God referred to himself in Genesis as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” By revelation, the non-Hebrew prophet, Balaam, identified Israel’s God as Yahweh, the Almighty, and Most High in Numbers 24:13-16. While referring to all nations, Moses called God “Most High” in Deuteronomy 32:8. The point is that, while he is the true Most High, God did not prefer to be identified by El Elyon in the Pentateuch! Although Genesis 14, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 32 are the only three uses of “Most High” in the Pentateuch, this name for God would not appear again for over one thousand years when David uttered it in Second Samuel 22:14—after his capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites in 5:7.
In other words, except for Abraham’s declaration that his Most High was actually “Yahweh, LORD” in Genesis 14:22 and the reference by Moses to the “nations” in Deuteronomy 32:8, this name for God, El Elyon, is of very little importance to the patriarchs like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. When David did begin using El Elyon again, it was usually prefixed by “LORD.” Thus Melchizedek’s use of Most High for his god likely betrayed himself as a Canaanite who did not know God’s most special covenant name, Yahweh.
Third, Scripture does not tell us that Abraham revealed the name of the true Most High God to Melchizedek. The key thought and climax of the narrative is found in verses 21-24, not in verses 18-20 which receive too much attention. Why? Because God’s “champion” at this point in the Old Testament is Abraham, and not Melchizedek! Although Abraham must have certainly spoken to Melchizedek, not one spoken word from Abraham to Melchizedek is recorded in Scripture! Odd indeed if God considered their meeting so important.
In summary, the great revelation that Abraham’s Most High was actually “Yahweh” was not made until he defended his actions towards the king of Sodom in verse 22. This omission of “Yahweh” concerning Melchizedek is important. Those who rush to make Genesis 14 teach tithing miss this point that, as priest of the “Most High” (El Elyon), Melchizedek did not know God as “LORD” (Yahweh, Jehovah), the covenant-God of Abraham and Israel. He was not priest of the “LORD Most High,” and it was only Abraham who identified God as “LORD” Most High. (Note: English Bibles use all capitals for ‘LORD’ when the Hebrew word is ‘Yahweh, Jehovah.’)
Why did Abram tithe to Melchizedek?
14:20…which has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
14:21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to yourself.
As noted earlier, tithing did not originate in the Bible. It was a well-known pagan practice from Phoenicia, Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and lands around the Fertile Crescent, even China. It was a mandatory customary tax to a pagan god or ruler. The Roman Empire continued this tradition by requiring its defeated subject nations, like Israel, to return the spoil of the first tithe of the land to them! From a comparison of discussions of verse 21, Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was in obedience to this old Arab war custom and was not a command from Yahweh. Evidently, the Arab war custom specified that ten percent of the spoils of war be given to the local priest-king, while the ninety percent belonged to the victor.
Abraham was OBLIGATED to pay a special one-time tithe-tax of the spoils of war. While those spoils usually belonged to an enemy, in this case, they belonged to Melchizedek’s ally, ambassador-friend, and possible subject, the king of Sodom (and those he represented).
Most of us have been told all of our lives that Abraham gave a free-will tithe to Melchizedek—but no evidence for this exists in Scripture. Many commentaries and theologians give contradictory reasons as to why Abraham tithed. Did he tithe because he freely wanted to give an offering to thank God and honor Melchizedek? Or did he tithe because he was obligated to tithe in observance of an old Arab war custom? It is clearly contradictory to interpret the ten percent in verse 20 as “free-will” and interpret the ninety percent in verse 21 as an “Arab war custom.” A resolution of this contradiction is crucial for a correct understanding of Abraham’s tithe and simply must be reconciled if the truth is to emerge.
Common sense tells us that the ten percent of verse 20 cannot be defined as Abraham’s voluntary worship of the Most High God if the ninety percent of verse 21 is controlled by a demanding Arab law! The most likely and obvious reason that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek was the mandatory Arab war custom which required a tenth of the spoils of war be given to the local ruler. Abraham did not choose to freely tithe in order to proclaim that Melchizedek was a priest of his God—otherwise, the reasoning for verse 21 is contradictory. This fact simply cannot be ignored.
Abram’s tithe – Conclusion
Reading into Scripture is a mistake we all make and we’ve all been in the place where we believe something and then find scriptures to prove what we believe. The problem is that we end up manipulating scriptures so that they say what we want them to say. The account of Abram tithing to Melchizedek is a very good example of this. Without proper study or revelation we preach a foundational Christian doctrine from a very small account in the context even of Abram’s life.
Reading the account in its proper context makes it clear that Abram was most probably simply acting according to current Arab practise of tithing spoils of war when he tithed to Melchizedek who happened to be the priest of the closest temple. Melchizedek was most probably not a priest of Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts, but merely a priest of a Canaanite deity, also referred to as the Lord Most High. Melchizedek was also not immortal or without ancestry. The meaning of this in the book of Hebrews is to highlight the difference between the Levitical priesthood which required written proof of ancestry and the priesthood of Melchizedek, who had none of that. “His history was not known yet he was a priest” is what Hebrews 7 is trying to say. This was impossible under the Levitical system but the whole point is that the priesthood of Jesus is completely different and superior!
The writer of Hebrews uses all the attributes of Melchizedek in a positive way but the point of Hebrews 7 is to illustrate the fact that Christ is greater than Levi, not to establish or verify the practise of tithing. Even the name of Jerusalem at the time of Abram was not because God was there but simply because that is what the locals called it; City of Peace.
While this account of Abram and Melchizedek can be used to teach many things, in its proper context it cannot be used to establish tithing as a godly practise, in fact, it establishes tithing as a PAGAN practise that has nothing to do with God. Proper exegesis makes it impossible to use this account to teach tithing unless it is taught from the perspective of honouring the customs of the day.
It is often also taught that Abram instituted the tithe. This does not make any sense, since he only ever did it once, and his act of tithing was wholly different from even Jacob’s act (the next instance of “tithing” in Scripture). To say that the recording of the act in Scripture means it was instituted by God is a major stretch. Perhaps we read into this Scripture account because we find a common word (tithe) and therefore link it up with other parts of Scripture which also mention the same word, but actually have nothing in common.
The tithe, therefore, has not always belonged to God. Before the institution of the tithe set out in the Mosaic covenant, it would be more accurate to say that “In the Middle East in Abram’s time the custom was that the local deity was entitled to a tenth of the spoils of war.”
“The Tithe Belongs to God” under the Law of Moses
While the tithe always belonged to God under the Law, the Jews didn’t start tithing when the Law was given but only once they started reaping from the Promised Land. Tithing under the Law of Moses could only ever be fruit of the land, and only land that was part of the Promised Land. Leviticus 27v30: “And all the tithe of the land…” The tribes of Israel that stayed East of the Jordan and therefore never entered into the Promised Land didn’t tithe.
It is worth noting that the tithe was always eaten, therefore if your produce was not edible, such as if you raised sheep for wool or if you grew trees for wood, you couldn’t tithe.
Another interesting point is that many people received from the tithe, including the widows, fatherless and aliens in the land. These people never tithed, but feasted on the fruit of the land nevertheless.
If you weren’t a farmer, you didn’t (couldn’t) tithe. Jesus didn’t tithe. He actually deals with the whole idea of paying money to the temple system or to God in Matthew 17:
Mat 17:25 He said, Yes. And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?
Mat 17:26 Peter said to Him, From strangers. Jesus said to him, Then truly the sons are free.
As people of a New Covenant, we know the terms of the Old do not apply to us. While there are many “shadows” in the Old which illustrate and explain the New, the relationship we have with the Old is not one of subjection, but of study. The claims, rules and statutes of the Old do not apply to us.
Malachi 3 and the cursed land
God rebukes people through Malachi for “robbing” Him. They rob God by not bringing the tithe and God announces to them that they are under a curse because of it. This Scripture is often used to justify the teaching of tithing and that tithes should be brought to the “storehouse”, i.e., the local church. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple..
God is not rebuking Israel for not bringing the tithe. The priests are being rebuked for not bringing the tithe to the storehouses and the result of this is that those Levites and priests who serve in the temple in Jerusalem are forced to go home because there’s no food in the temple for them to live on and so therefore the temple ministry was being neglected. (see 2 Chronicles 31, Nehemiah 13v1-13, Nehemiah 10v28-39)
The tithing of the Pharisees in Matthew 23
The Pharisees were being so fastidious about obeying the Law that they even tithed from their garden herbs/spices. This practice wasn’t strictly required, and I fail to see how you can “feast” on a person’s crop of spices grown in their garden, but it was technically “fruit of the land” and the Pharisees therefore tithed it. Jesus rebuked them because while they were so focused on obeying the Law of Moses, they missed the whole point of it, and were neglecting the real issues of justice, mercy and faithfulness. Jesus tells them to “practice the latter (justice, mercy, faithfulness) without neglecting the former (tithing).”
It is important to note that he was speaking to Jews under the Law of Moses. He was not trying to give them a way out of obeying the Law, he was pointing out their hypocrisy. That is why he said they should not neglect the former, referring to their practice of tithing. How this applies to Christians today baffles me. Jesus told people to cut off their hands if it would help them sin no more, but no sane person is doing that today. Why? Because we understand he was trying to point out the seriousness of sin, he wasn’t trying to establish a code of practice. The rebuke to the Pharisees is exactly the same thing. Taking “without neglecting the former” as an exhortation to Christians to continue tithing is mixing the Old and New and simply wrong.
“Tithing was never cancelled at the cross”
It is often claimed that since tithing was not specifically cancelled at the Cross or in the writings of the New Testament, it must still be applicable.
This hangs on the assumption that the tithe existed before the Law. As we have already seen, this is a dubious claim, and therefore the argument that tithing is still valid because it was never cancelled is totally invalid.
However, it is worth saying that everything was cancelled at the Cross! The New Covenant is not a continuation of the Old Covenant. It isn’t ‘phase two’. It is exactly what it says it is: A NEW COVENANT. The whole idea that things continued ‘through’ the Cross is ludicrous because everything changed at the Cross. There is nothing in the Old Covenant that continues into the New. No more performance, no more sacrifices, no more circumcision, no more altars, no more us doing. Now it is God has DONE.
Until the Cross, there was never a time when people were sons of God, born from above. Now we are SONS!
Sons or Servants?
This brings us to the real reason I believe tithing is not of the new covenant. Are we sons or servants?
Let me illustrate:
A man owns a large ranch in Texas. They farm all kinds of things, maize and steers being their main focus. The man has sons that help him work the farm. Some drive combine harvesters, some herd the cattle, some repair vehicles, you get the picture. During harvest time it is all hands on deck, as any farmer knows, this is the crucial time and every waking hour is spent getting the crops into the storehouses. The son who drives the combine and the son who repairs the combine all work to get the harvest in. When the harvest is brought in, it is brought to a single barn, a single storehouse or set of storehouses. After all, it’s the family business. It is all our harvest.
The man who owns the ranch has so much land that he also rents out some of the land to a sharecropper. This man is not part of the family, he doesn’t sit around the dinner table at the end of the day. This man might use some of the farming tools that the owner of the land has, but when the harvest is brought in, he pays for the use of the land with a percentage of the harvest. His crop is not part of the landowners crop, it is his.
Now if one of the sons of the landowner had this idea that the tithe belongs to the Father, a few things would have to change before he could tithe: The first thing he would have to do is set up a separate barn so that he could put his portion of the family harvest into his barn. No longer would he be working as part of the family, but now he would be keeping some of the harvest he helped bring in for himself. If he didn’t do this how could he tithe? He could hardly take some grain out of the barn and put it back. That would be silly. The very idea of keeping aside some of the harvest for himself is ludicrous to me. It speaks of someone who doesn’t understand that the whole harvest is ours. Like the father said in the story of the prodigal son, “Everything I have is yours…” Only a son who doesn’t understand sonship or the heart of the father would keep aside some of the harvest for himself.
The whole idea of saying the tithe belongs to God is ludicrous in this context. Why? Because it means you are a sharecropper, not a son. Everything is His and everything is yours!
Like Jesus said: Do kings receive tribute from their sons?
(Thanks to Gary Carpenter for this excellent illustration)
Financial Giving in the New Covenant
Living by the Spirit vs Living by the Flesh
The terms of the New Covenant state that God will write His laws on our hearts. We understand that the Old Covenant was one of external regulation, whereas the New Covenant is one of internal renewal. Paul says it succinctly in Romans: “We live by the NEW WAY of the spirit, not the OLD WAY of the written code.”
What does this mean in practise?
If we preach a revelation of Jesus, it will bring forth fruit in a believer’s life. Preach to build faith and the believer will start doing certain things. We don’t have to tell people to be generous, if we can show them how God is generous to us and how lavishly He loves us, generosity will flow. The same goes for any Christian behaviour, it is a manifestation of the new nature inside us. We are joyful because God is, we are forgiving because God is, we love, because He is love. You don’t have to teach a Christian to love, you just have to reveal Jesus and love will pour out unbidden!
We bear fruit as we remain in Him.
Now try and get people to tithe without using ANY external regulation. Impossible.
You have to use external regulation. If you don’t teach a believer to tithe, they won’t. To me that’s external regulation. In other words, Law. Living by the external regulation is living by the flesh. Teach people how to live according to the spirit, removing the obstacles presented by the flesh and the money issue will be resolved.
If we look at the context of the giving mentioned in Corinthians and Galatians, we see that they BEGGED Paul to allow them to give him money!
In 1 Cor 16 Paul is helping them with administration of their intent, to enable them to do that which the Corinthians WANTED to do well. He isn’t telling them to tithe but to put aside money every week until the time of the collection. It is clear that this was only for preparing the financial gift they had previously committed to give. We all know if you don’t put money aside you just spend it. It is a stretch of the context to say the Corinthians put money aside every week as a matter of course. The context is only for this gift. Saying that they were giving this money to the local church is false, they were making a collection to support the ministry of Paul.
The fact remains that the act of giving was initiated by the people, not by Paul. Continually teaching tithing until people tithe is ensnaring Christians in dead works that will actually limit their prosperity and faith in the financial area. The purpose of the Scriptures in the New Covenant is not prescription but a revelation of Christ. If we preach prescription we have fallen into works and away from grace. Reveal Christ through the scriptures and external regulation will be unnecessary.
One final point:
There is no difference between “the tithe” or “a tithe”. In different translations this is translated differently. There isn’t even a definite article for many of the instances of “tithe” in the Hebrew or Greek. ie: the “a” or “the” was added because of English grammar rules, not because it is there in the original language.