Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving:A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues andNew Testament PrinciplesANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER AND DAVID A. CROTEAUSOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARYIn a previous article the authors discussed all relevant references to tithing in Scripture andconcluded that the continuation of a tithing requirement can not be adequately supported by theexegesis of individual texts. In the present essay they assess the applicability of tithing in light ofpertinent systematic issues. Following a discussion of the relationship between the Mosaic Lawand the new covenant, larger systematic issues that have been used to argue for the continuationof tithing are analyzed and critiqued. The article concludes with a survey of New Testamentprinciples for giving.Key words: tithing, tithe, Mosaic Law, new covenant, Law and gospel, giving, stewardship, Paul,1 Corinthians 9, 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8–9, Philippians 4.In our previous discussion of the Old and New Testament passages regarding tithing,1 weconcluded that the view that Christians are required to give at least ten percent of their incomelacks adequate support from the biblical data. This is not to say that Christians are not required togive, but that no Scripture commands a certain percentage as the minimum giving requirement.The issue of whether or not Christians are required to tithe involves more than an exegeticaldiscussion, as larger systematic issues need to be considered as well. Therefore, we will nowdiscuss the relationship between the Mosaic Law and the new covenant. Space prohibits an indepthdiscussion and analysis of views such as the Reformed, Dispensationalist, or Catholicviews on Law and gospel. After presenting the eschatological continuity view, which maintainsthat the relationship between the Mosaic Law and the new covenant does not support a mandatedtithe for Christians, several arguments for the continuation of tithing flowing from largersystematic considerations will be analyzed and critiqued. This will be followed by a presentationof the New Testament teaching on giving.SYSTEMATIC ISSUES RELATED TO TITHING AND GIVING“Not to Abolish, but to Fulfill”: The Eschatological Continuity ViewThe discussion on the continuity or discontinuity of any law within the Mosaic code shouldinclude, at some point, a proposal for the relationship between the old and new covenants. The1Andreas J. Köstenberger and David A. Croteau, “‘Will a Man Rob God?’ (Malachi 3:8): A Study of Tithing in theOld and New Testaments,” BBR [previous issue; insert volume, issue, page numbers].2issue of whether or not a Christian is required to give at least ten percent of his income is noexception. One of the key passages for the Law and gospel issue is Matt 5:17–20.The “eschatological continuity view” of Matt 5:17–20 considers the Law of Christ to be aqualitative advancement over the Mosaic Law. It affirms a certain degree of discontinuitybetween the Old and the New Testament similar to the Anabaptist and Dispensationalisttraditions while at the same time acknowledging the element of continuity between Moses’ andJesus’ teaching which is stressed in Reformed theology. Wells and Zaspel have noted that“Moses is not so much abolished as he is ‘fulfilled’ and so reinterpreted in light of the epochalevents associated with Christ’s first coming.”2 If the infinitives in Matt 5:17 are viewed asinfinitives of purpose, it is possible to say that the “purpose of Jesus’ ‘coming’ entailed doingsomething with/to the Law of Moses.”3 But what effect does Jesus’ coming have on the Law?First, the phrase “the Law or the prophets” (Matt 5:17) should be understood as referringto the entire Old Testament.4 The contrast is between “abolishing” and “fulfilling,” but the exactmeaning of the word plhrovw (“fulfill”) is debated. Some proposed meanings, such as “keep,”“confirm,” or “validate,” can be rejected outright, based on Matthew’s use of plhrovw. Matthewuses plhrovw sixteen times and with two different senses (excluding Matt 5:17): (1) literally, tofill up (like a container);5 and (2) figuratively, in relationship to prophecy, usually in anintroductory formula to an Old Testament citation.6 Banks’ descriptions of the effect Jesus’coming had on the Mosaic Law include “new,”7 “new norm,”8 “goes far beyond,”9 and“transcend,”10 but not abrogation.11 When deciding on the meaning of this passage, it is2Tom Wells and Fred G. Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick: NewCovenant Media, 2002), 86.3Ibid., 111.4Donald A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 8; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984), 142. Contra William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the GospelAccording to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 288 (“the Pentateuch or the rest of the Old Testament”); DavidWenham, “Jesus and the Law: an exegesis of Matthew 5:17–20,” Them 4 (1979): 92–96.5The two references are Matt 13:48 and 23:32. See Johannes P. Louw, and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-EnglishLexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988,1989), 598, for the definition in Matt 13:48.6See Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9. For Matt 3:15 fitting into thiscategory, see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature(3d ed.; rev. and ed. F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000),829, who include Matt 3:15 under this semantic range, but with a different object.7Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 201.8Ibid., 199.9Ibid., 187, 191.10Ibid., 191, 193, 199; R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 114.3important to note that the word used as a converse to “abolish” is not the Greek equivalent to“confirm,” “enforce,” or “obey,” but the word plhrovw.12 Banks, adducing Matt 11:13, notes thatboth the Prophets and the Law point forward, principally and in the same way, to Jesus.13 Heconcludes that “[t]he word ‘fulfill’ in 5:17, then, included not only an element of discontinuity(that which has now been realized transcends the Law) but an element of continuity as well (thatwhich transcends the Law is nevertheless something to which the Law itself pointed forward).”14Hence “fulfill” conveys the notion of being complete, “by giving the final revelation of God’swill to which the Old Testament pointed forward, and which now transcends it.”15Jesus goes on to say that the Law will not “pass away” and modifies this statement withtwo “until”-clauses. The first “until” (“until heaven and earth disappear”) refers to the end of theage, and the second (“until everything takes place”) applies to all that has been prophesied,16 notJesus’ ministry or work on the cross.17 “These commandments” does not pertain to Jesus’teaching,18 but to the Old Testament.19 Banks, citing the parallel between Matt 5:19 and 28:20,contends that ejntol does not always refer to the Old Testament, but one verse contains thenoun form (Matt 5:19) and the other the verb form (Matt 28:20). Therefore, while every lawmust continue to be practiced, “the nature of the practicing has already been affected by vv. 17–18.”20 So is there a difference in practice? And, if so, how can this substantiated? Jesus clarifiesand gives five examples (antitheses) in Matt 5:21–48.11See Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 189, 193. See also France, Matthew, 193.12See France, Matthew, 194.13See Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 210. See also Carson, “Matthew,” 39; France, Matthew,194; Gospel according to Matthew, 114.14Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 210. The term “transcend” may be problematic as well in thatit may suggest that what Jesus did to the Law and Prophets was to go beyond them, while, as Carson contends, thethrust of the passage has Jesus as actually pointing back to the underlying principles that were foundational to thelaws.15France, Gospel According to Matthew, 114. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 143: “points to.” Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 405, provide these definitions: “to give the truemeaning to, to provide the real significance of”; “real intent”; or “real purpose.” BDAG 828–29 provides the optionof “to bring to a designed end.” The work continues to state that in Matt 5:17 the term means either “fulfill=do, carryout, or as bring to full expression=show it forth in its true mng., or as fill up=complete” (italics in original). Thisidea of showing the true meaning is tantalizing in view of how we interpret the antitheses (see below).16See Carson, “Matthew,” 145.17See Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993),234.18Contra Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 240.19See Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 235; Carson, “Matthew,” 146.20Carson, “Matthew,” 146. Cf. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 235.4These antitheses in Matt 5:21–48 demonstrate Jesus’ point. He is not annulling orabrogating any of the Old Testament laws. Rather, he is correcting the misunderstanding andmisinterpretation of the Pharisees concerning the laws,21 pointing back to the true meaning of theLaw and the underlying principles from which they developed, which constitute the abidingmoral norms. While Banks is technically correct that plhrovw by itself may not be capable ofconveying the notion of “setting out the true meaning,”22 contextually this gloss comes close tocapturing the sense in which Jesus seems to understand his fulfillment of the Old TestamentLaw.In the antitheses, Jesus is explaining the direction in which these Old Testamentcommandments point. This may for all practical purposes appear as intensifying or annulling, butthe route to the conclusion is different.23 The way in which one comes to a conclusion on how aMosaic Law applies to a Christian is extremely important. If one held to abrogation for allMosaic laws, one would, in practice, be correct as far as the sacrificial system is concerned. Yetone would be wrong with regard to laws prohibiting murdering or coveting.All of the Old Testament is binding on Christians in some sense.24 This needs to bebalanced with the fact that “the Old Testament’s real and abiding authority must be understoodthrough the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it.”25Therefore, Banks is correct when he says that “it is in the Law’s transformation and ‘fulfillment’in the teaching of Jesus that its validity continues.”26 How does Jesus fulfill the Law? Jesus is theeschatological goal or end of the Law (Rom 10:4); he is the fulfillment toward which the Lawhad been pointing.Therefore, this view on the Law does not necessitate the abrogation or continuation oftithing; one would need to look at what the tithe was, how it functioned in the Mosaic Law, andif any fulfillment occurred that changed how tithing was to be practiced. The above discussionhas shown that the tithe’s function in the Mosaic Law was connected to the Temple andsacrifices. The once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross should therefore, among other things,be viewed as constituting the fulfillment of this specific Mosaic law.2721See Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995),257; Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 240.22Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 229.23Carson, “Matthew,” 144.24See Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, 268.25Carson, “Matthew,” 144 (emphasis added).26Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 237.27We would be remiss not to mention Robert T. Kendall, Tithing: A Call to Serious, Biblical Giving (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1982), 24, who lists the relationship between Law and gospel as the second reason why Christians donot tithe. As a rebuttal, he proceeds to question motives and assumes that these people are not giving ten percentowing to greed, stinginess, or materialism. His chapter on “The Gospel and the Law” (57–69) continues this line ofreasoning but does address the problem somewhat more straightforwardly.5While the idea that the Mosaic Law should (or even could) be divided into threecategories (civil, ceremonial, moral) is untenable, all views on the Mosaic Law must take intoaccount the crucifixion. All prescriptions of the Mosaic Law that are tied to sacrifices willundergo heavy reconsideration as far as external practices are concerned. It is not that believersrefuse to take part in the “sacrificial system,” for by placing one’s faith in Christ one has trustedthat his sacrifice is able to accomplish more than what the Mosaic prescriptions could: eternalforgiveness of sins; a once-for-all sacrifice. This “once-for-all” nature demonstrates thesuperiority of Christ’s sacrifice over the Mosaic prescriptions. The Levites’ main functions wereto take care of the temple and to stand between Israel and God to offer daily sacrifices for sin;our sacrifice is complete. Therefore, there is no longer any need for Levites; no one standsbetween God and people but the “man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).28 Tithes (and offerings) areinextricably tied to the Mosaic sacrifices.29This does not eliminate the principles set forth in the tithing passages. Brandenburg saysthat “[t]he entire Old Testament Law is but a shadow of that which is realized in Christ (Col2:16–17). The Law is always at one and the same time indication and promise of the new orderof life.”30 Therefore, we propose that the New Testament can be mined to discover principles forgiving which are concrete and which are not at odds with the principles of the tithing laws.However, the concept of ten percent has no place in the new covenant. Verhoef provides a fittingconclusion: “In connection with ‘tithing’ it must be clear that it belonged, in conjunction with thewhole system of giving and offering, to the dispensation of shadows, and that it therefore has lostits significance as an obligation of giving under the new dispensation. The continuity consists inthe principle of giving, in the continued obligation to be worthy stewards of our possessions, butthe discontinuity in the manner in which we fulfill our obligations.”31Arguments for the Continuation of Tithing that Flow from Larger SystematicConsiderations: A Brief Analysis and CritiqueIn light of these observations, evidence for the continuation of tithing is found wanting even on alarger theological scale. Not only do none of the biblical passages provide an adequate exegeticalbasis from which to argue for a continuation of the tithing requirement for New Testamentbelievers,32 a proper way of construing the importance of Jesus’ comments in Matt 5:17–20along the lines of the eschatological continuity view presented above, likewise, does not warrantthe conclusion that the tithing requirement continues into the New Testament period. The only28Note also that pastors (e.g., elders or overseers) do not stand between God and believers. All believers are able toapproach God themselves; we are all “priests.”29Cf. Calkins, The Modern Message of the Minor Prophets, 137.30Brandenburg, Die Kleinen Propheten II, 153. The translation is that of the present authors.31Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 311.32See the discussion above and further below.6ground of appeal left is therefore a variety of other arguments that flow from larger systematicconsiderations. We will briefly analyze and critique three of the most common argumentsbelow.33Arguments. First, many among those who hold to a system known as covenant theologyview tithing as part of the moral law. This group divides the law into three parts: moral, civil,and ceremonial. Proponents of this view say that the ceremonial law was fulfilled or completedby Christ and the civil law no longer applies because we have separated church and state. Thecivil law is helpful guidance to governments, but not binding. However, the moral law continueson, since it is a reflection of the character of God.34 This group typically contends that laws donot have to be repeated in the New Testament in order to continue: the continued relevance of alaw is assumed, its abrogation needs to be stated.Second, some Christians hold to the obligation of tithing because of traditionalism. Theargument is usually stated in terms of the way things have always been done in their church.35Some in this category believe that the word “tithe” means “a religious monetary gift,” with nospecific amount attached to the word. While one group asserts that ten percent is the minimumone should give, others (while still using “tithing terminology”) do not conceive of tithing interms of giving a certain percentage of one’s income. Some ministers in this category are fearfulof what would happen should they tell their members that they are not obligated to tithe. Theyclaim that their church may suffer financially. They fear that monetary giving would severelydecrease. They are also concerned regarding what should be the message to their congregationon how, and how much, to give. Since they do not see a viable alternative, they continue to teachtithing (and in many cases, tithing as a ten percent-minimum requirement). What could be theharm, they argue, of teaching what is, after all, a biblical requirement?33Space does not permit a discussion of dispensational or new covenant theology. As far as dispensational theologyis concerned, many of its proponents do not believe that tithing is obligatory for Christians (e.g., Louis SperryChafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and John MacArthur). New covenant theology is a fairly new system.Therefore (1) we have yet to find them addressing the issue of tithing in print (usually they discuss the Sabbath); and(2) the system is not centralized and is still developing. Others who do not view tithing as obligatory for Christiansinclude: Merrill Unger, Gerald F. Hawthorne, and Ron Rhodes (see also the Church father Irenaeus).34By way of suggestion, it may be more appropriate to view the civil and sacrificial laws as coming from the morallaw, not as parallel to it.35Not to categorize all the following as falling within this category (as some most assuredly do not), the followinghold to the obligation of Christians to tithing: Larry Burkett, Charles Stanley, W. A. Criswell, Herschel Hobbs, D.James Kennedy, John Stott, Stephen Olford, Jerry Falwell, A. W. Pink, R. T. Kendall, Marvin Tate, Mark Rooker,Ron Sider (“graduated-tithing”), Pat Robertson, Jack Hayford, Gary North, and O. S. Hawkins. Some others aremore difficult to classify: D. A. Carson and Walter Kaiser. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart apparently do not hold tothe obligation of tithing (see Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide toUnderstanding the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 137). Neither does Craig L. Blomberg (William W.Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Dallas: Word, 1993],279, 415; Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 326;Craig L. Blomberg, Heart, Soul, and Money: A Christian View of Possessions [Joplin: College Press, 2000], 31, 85–87).7A third approach is that of pragmatism. Those in this group fall under several differentcategories. Some claim that it is simply easier to tell Christians that they should give at least tenpercent rather than to try to explain another, more complicated, method. Related to this, some arefearful that the alternative (presented below) will lead to a decrease in giving.36 Admittedly, it issimple to tell church members, students, and pastors that all they need to require people to do isto start with ten percent. Such a requirement has the advantage of requiring believers to give aclear-cut figure of their income which removes all ambiguities. Simply asking people to taketheir paycheck and to multiply it by 0.10 and then write a check based upon that total is lesscomplex than the principles we will present below. Overall, those who teach tithing forpragmatic reasons have an easy-to-do and easy-to-understand doctrine on giving for Christians(especially new believers).Brief Analysis and Critique. Are any of the above arguments compelling? First, regardingcovenant theology, arguing from within this system, the major problem with this view is thattithing is in no way tied to the moral law. Assuming for a moment that the distinction betweenmoral, ceremonial, and civil law is unproblematic (which it is not), tithing is part of theceremonial law, and possibly part of the civil law. But nowhere in the Old Testament is tithingconnected to the moral law. Second, the problem with traditionalism is that, in keeping with aprinciple that evangelicals have held dear at least since the Reformation, unless a requirementcan be established from Scripture, it should not be imposed upon believers. Anothermisunderstanding is that, as we will attempt to demonstrate below, unless tithing were taught,believers would be left in a vacuum as far as giving is concerned, and the church’s financialstanding would therefore suffer. To the contrary, there are in fact many principles on givingChristians can be taught to observe apart from a tithing requirement. Finally, as to pragmatism,these adherents have given up attempting to prove that tithing is a scriptural obligation for thosein the new covenant period. It does not matter how simple or complex the teaching may be: if itis biblical, it must be taught and obeyed. If the evangelical church decides to base its teachingupon what is pragmatic, then doctrine is relegated to second place. Any church that decides to dothis will cease at that point to be evangelical. Doctrine must remain central to our teaching andfaith.There are other problems with the concept that tithing is still obligatory for Christians.Nowhere are Christians commanded to tithe in the New Testament. This fact alone should raiseconcerns for those who believe the issue is black and white and believers ought to tithe today.The issue of multiple tithes (that the Israelites actually gave at least twenty percent per year)likewise has yet to meet a satisfactory answer. To call for the cessation of two of the three tithes,while leaving one intact, would seem to require some major theological nuancing. Though theNew Testament discusses giving at many junctures, no passage ever cites a specific percentage.3736We have actually had someone say to us that even if we were right, they could not teach it because their churchmembers would stop giving. This was followed by the argument that God did not want this man’s church to die, sohe had to continue teaching tithing, regardless.37This argument from silence will be developed further below.8The references to giving in passages such as Gal 6:6, 1 Tim 5:17, and 2 Cor 8–9 lead one tobelieve that the issue of giving was a vital one in many churches. Paul could have simplyaddressed this issue by appealing to the Old Testament teaching of tithing. However, he neverresorted to this type of approach.Tithing proponents typically fail to recognize that tithing is an integral part of the OldTestament sacrificial system that has been once and for all fulfilled in Christ. The Epistle to theHebrews, Rom 10:4, and Matt 5 all point to this reality. This may be the best reason why tithingis not commanded in the new covenant era: it was fulfilled in Christ. Some tithing supportersview the Old Testament teaching on tithing as an act one must perform to show honor andrespect to God, regardless of its possible fulfillment in Christ. Yet, in the Old Testament tithingis commanded for the support of the priests and Levites who are in charge of the temple. It isalso linked with offerings, which, despite how this may be taught today, does not refer to theamount above ten percent. An offering in the Old Testament did not refer to adding a “tip forGod,” as it were, after one had fulfilled the tithe, but to “the peace offerings and other sacredgifts, in the form of the breast of the wave offering, the thigh of the ram of ordination (Exod.29:27, 28; etc.), cakes of leavened bread, etc. (Lev. 7:14).”38Conclusion. The case for tithing ultimately rests not on the exegesis of biblical passageson tithing, but on arguments from a theological system or tradition. We have attempted to showthat the text of Scripture contains no exegetical basis for tithing. What is more, arguments fromtheological systems or traditions have been shown to be unpersuasive as well. As Verhoefconcludes,An important consideration in connection with this pericope [Mal 3] is whether thedemands and the promises are also applicable in the NT dispensation, as they were underthe OT dispensation. Our answer must be “Yes” and “No.” Yes, because there iscontinuity in connection with both our obligation to fulfill our stewardship and thepromises of God’s blessing in our lives. This cannot be denied. At the same time ouranswer must be “No,” because we also have a discontinuity pertaining to the specificrelationship between the OT and the NT and the relative dispensations. The discontinuityconsists especially in the outward scheme of things, regarding both the obligations andthe promises.39For this reason we conclude that New Testament believers should not be required to giveten percent or more, but not less, of their income. This does not mean that we are left withnothing. Those who do not hold to the position that tithing is obligatory for Christians have beencharged with teaching that believers need not give to the church. But this charge is similar tocharging Paul with encouraging believers to sin when he teaches salvation by faith through graceapart from the Law (Rom 3:23). As will be seen, the New Testament provides more than38Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 305.39Ibid., 311.9sufficient guidance for giving. In fact, it sets a considerably higher (albeit more complex)standard than merely giving ten percent of one’s income. The following presentation is notintended to be exhaustive but attempts to delineate the major principles for giving contained inthe New Testament.THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON GIVINGPaul and Giving40While Paul never discusses tithing, and Jesus did so only incidentally, both address giving andstewardship.41 There are many words used in the New Testament that refer to a gift or giving.Carivzomai (glossed “freely give,” “deliver,” or “forgive”) is not once used in the NewTestament with reference to money.42 The subject is usually, but not always, God. Dovsis occurstwice in the New Testament, in Phil 4:15 and Jas 1:17. In the former passage, the expressionmost likely refers to money43 and Paul’s praise of the Philippians for their support. The latterpassage does not specifically refer to money, though a reference to money could be involved.44Dovths occurs only once in the New Testament (1 Cor 9:7) where it refers to one who givesmonetarily. This passage will be discussed further below. Dwrevomai, dwreavn, dwvrhma,dwreav, and cavrisma involve no direct references to money.45 Dw/ron occurs nineteen timesin the New Testament.46 The only references related to money are in Matt 2:11; 15:5 (par. Mark7:11); and Luke 21:1, 4. The first (Matt 2:11) describes the wise men’s gifts to Jesus. Matthew15:5 (par. Mark 7:11) discusses Corban and honoring one’s father and mother. The finalreferences are to the widow’s mite in Luke 21:1–4 and the deep sacrifice of her gift. Of the 15540For more development on giving in the new covenant period, see David A. Croteau, “A Biblical and TheologicalAnalysis of Tithing: Toward a Theology of Giving in the New Covenant Era” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern BaptistTheological Seminary, 2005), 240–59.41That is, unless one holds to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews: but see Donald A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and LeonMorris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 395, and Donald Guthrie, NewTestament Introduction (revised ed.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 682.42The only possible exception is Rom 8:32.43See discussion below.44Neither James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 74–75, nor Peter H.Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 86–88mention money when discussing “gift” in Jas 1:17.45Dwrevomai (Mark 15:45; 2 Pet 1:3, 4); dwreavn (Matt 10:8; John 15:25; Rom 3:24; 2 Cor 11:7; Gal 2:21; 2Thess 3:8; Rev 21:6; 22:17); dwvrhma (Rom 5:16; James 1:17); dwreav (John 4:10; Act 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17;Rom 5:15, 17; 2 Cor 9:15; Eph 3:7; 4:7; Heb 6:4); cavrisma (Rom 1:11; 5:15, 16; 6:23; 11:29; 12:6; 1 Cor 1:7; 7:7;12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31; 2 Cor 1:11; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Pet 4:10). Regarding dwreavn, 2 Thess 3:8 may contain aslight reference to money.46Matt 2:11; 5:23, 24; 8:4; 15:5; 23:18, 19; Mark 7:11; Luke 21:1, 4; Eph 2:8; Heb 5:1; 8:3, 4; 9:9; 11:4; Rev 11:10.10occurrences of cavris, only the use in 1 Corinthians 16:3 has money as a referent. This text willbe examined below. Dovma occurs four times (Matt 7:11 par. Luke 11:13; Eph 4:8; Phil 4:17),and three of the four passages may involve a reference to money. Philippians 4:15–17 will bediscussed below. The word evlehmosu,nhn, glossed “donation,” “almsgiving,” or “charitablegiving,” occurs thirteen times.47 None of the uses are particularly helpful for giving in the newcovenant period. Metadivdwmi occurs five times,48 and two uses are significant for our study:Rom 12:8 discusses the spiritual gift of giving and Eph 4:28 refers to giving to the needy. Theapproximate 417 occurrences of divdwmi make an even cursory survey here impossible. A fewoccurrences do stand out, however. One group of verses involving divdwmi discusses giving tothe poor.49 From this group, we will focus on 2 Cor 9:9 below. In another verse (Acts 20:35)Paul is quoting Jesus: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”The four main passages in which Paul discusses giving are 1 Cor 9:1–23; 16:1–4; 2 Cor8–9; and Phil 4:15–17.50Does Paul Discuss Tithing?Paul does not explicitly refer to tithing anywhere in his writings. Nevertheless, some have arguedthat Paul’s lack of mentioning the tithe does not equal his rejection of the practice.51 Yet it isunclear why the apostle would discuss giving monetarily to the church and not mention tithing ifthis in fact is what he had in mind. It is entirely possible for someone to discuss a subject such astithing without mentioning the word. We will therefore examine the four just-mentioned Paulinepassages on giving to see if the subject is tithing even though the word “tithing” is not used.First, 1 Cor 9:13–14 may be the most difficult passage in one’s determination of whetheror not Paul ever refers to the concept of tithing. If at any point Paul were to appeal to Mal 3 or totithes and offerings, this would be the most likely place for him to do so. In fact, the language ofthese verses is very intriguing. The main point of the passage is found in verse 4: Do not Pauland the other apostles have the right to have their needs supplied by those to whom theyminister? This question is still part of the larger discussion from chapter 8 regarding foodsacrificed to idols. The overall context is that of foregoing rights. This is supported by all of the47Matt 6:2, 3, 4; Luke 11:41; 12:33; Acts 3:2, 3, 10; 9:36; 10:2, 4, 31; 24:17.48Luke 3:11; Rom 1:11; 12:8; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:8.49Matt 19:21; 26:9; Mark 14:5; Luke 12:33; 2 Cor 9:9.50Paul does discuss giving in other passages, like Gal 2. However, for our purposes the three main passages willsuffice.51See George B. Davis, “Are Christians Supposed to Tithe,” CTR 2 (1987): 89. For instance, it is typical for modernpreachers to say that the tithe needs to be given and any special offering (like the one in 1 Cor 16) should not detractfrom the duty to tithe. However, Paul never mentions this to a church such as the Corinthian one that was in aHellenistic context and had shown itself to be disobedient in several areas, which would seem to indicate the needfor clear teaching on a fundamental subject such as this.11illustrations provided by Paul.52 The concept of his needs being supplied by others is supportedby his question about working in verse 6: are Barnabas and Paul the only two who have to workwhile the others are supported? Collins summarizes it this way: “As an apostle Paul had a rightto receive financial support from the community to which he was sent.”53 The setting is similarto a courtroom and Paul is providing his own defense.54In verse 7, Paul accumulates as many as three illustrations regarding receiving support:55(1) soldiers do not serve in the military at their own expense; the government provides forthem;(2) when a farmer plants a vineyard he, naturally, will eat some of the fruit; and(3) a shepherd partakes of the milk of his flock.56Collins and Garland say that these three examples (and the ones to follow) are “secular.”57However, the difference between the first three examples and the last two (discussed below) isone of authority: the first three are illustrations and/or examples from human reasoning, the lasttwo are proofs based upon the Old Testament.58 Paul’s final proof is a quote from Jesus.Verse 8 begins Paul’s defense of this principle of support through an appeal to the OldTestament, specifically Deut 25:4: “Do not prevent an ox from eating while it is treading out the52Four of the first five specifically mention eating or food. Only the first is not as explicit, but part of providing forsoldiers would include food (cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, First Epistle of St Paul to theCorinthians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911], 182, who say it primarily refers to the soldiers’ food,but also pay and outfit). However, Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987), 405 n. 44, convincingly demonstrates that “provisions,” and not money, is in mind (so David E.Garland, 1 Corinthians [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 408). Raymond F. Collins, 1 Corinthians (SacraPagina Series; vol. 7; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 333, is judicious when he says that “[o]n one level Paulwishes to establish that apostolic labors merit due recompense. That pragmatic goal is subordinate to Paul’s ultimatepurpose, to exhort the Corinthians to forego, as he did, the exercise of their rights (exousia) and an otherwiselegitimate use of their freedom (eleutheria) for the sake of others within the community.”53Collins, 1 Corinthians, 330.54So ibid., 328.55See ibid., who mentions the staccato effect of the illustrations and Paul’s use of alliteration and paronomasia.Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 182 summarize this well: “labour may claim some kind ofreturn.”56Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (rev. ed.; TyndaleNew Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 132, makes an interesting comment differentiatingbetween these three workers: the soldier was paid wages (see above), the farmer might be the owner, and theshepherd was like a slave.57See Collins, 1 Corinthians, 333 and Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414.58See Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Columbus:Wartburg Press, 1946), 358; Robert G. Bratcher, A Translator’s Guide to Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians(Helps For Translators; New York: United Bible Societies, 1982), 82. Cf. Charles K. Barrett, The First Epistle to theCorinthians (Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: A. & C. Black, 1968), 205 and Fee, The First Epistleto the Corinthians, 405. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1971), 84, says itclearly: the first set is “human analogy” and the final two are “divine law.”12grain.” Paul’s application is that, since he sows59 spiritual things, he should reap material things(v. 11).60He then explains (v. 12) that he and the other apostles voluntarily chose to forego thisright for the sake of the gospel. Of the four illustrations Paul has given thus far, three are“common sense” and one is a proof from Deuteronomy. Now illustration number 5 follows: “Doyou not know that those who minister in the Temple get their meals from the Temple, and thosewho serve at the altar partake in what is offered on the altar?” This is a reference to the priestswho served in the Temple as prescribed in the Mosaic Covenant.61 Ministers of God should besupported for their spiritual service. However, the next verse says that, “in the same way,”preachers in the new covenant should receive support for their ministry. Does “in the sameway”62 refer to tithes and offerings?63 There are a few ways in which this argument could bemade.59The word for sow is speivrw, a word meaning literally to sow seed and metaphorically to spread the word of God(e.g., Matt 13:18–39; Mark 4:14; Luke 8:5; John 4:36–37). It is used with a different sense in 1 Cor 15.60For a satisfactory explanation of Paul’s use of this verse, see Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians,360–61. Morris, 1 Corinthians, 132 (so also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 410) notes that the original verse in Deut was ina context dealing with people, not animals. Therefore it may originally have held a figurative meaning.61A question that needs to be asked of v. 13 is what iJerovs refers to: the temple in Jerusalem, pagan temples, orboth. That this could be referring solely to a pagan temple must be rejected on the basis of the word Paul used in 1Cor 8:10, eijdwlei/on, which refers to a pagan temple. Also, Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414, notes thatqusiasthvrion, in the NT, “almost exclusively [refers to] the Jewish cult.” While this concept of priests living off ofsacrifices applies to the service of any temple (so Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 85;Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 187; Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 208),Paul probably has in mind the temple in Jerusalem (so Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414, Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 85;Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 366; Bratcher, First Letter to the Corinthians, 84; Richard L.Pratt, Jr., I & II Corinthians [Holman New Testament Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000], 148).Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 412, thinks the question does not matter and concludes that Paul wouldprobably be thinking of Jerusalem and the Corinthians of temples in their context.62W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 10; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1976), 244, notes that the “adverb ‘thus’ shows that the principle of giving material support forthose who serve in the temple is to be applied also to ministers of the gospel.” Garland, 1 Corinthians, 415, says it“means that the Lord’s command accords with reason, common practice in secular and religious occupations, andOT law.” The phrase ou{tws kaiv occurs ten times in 1 Cor (2:11; 9:14; 11:12; 12:12; 14:9, 12; 15:22, 42, 45; 16:1)and it means that there is a correspondence, a relationship, between the two things. Usually the relationship isspecifically one point of correspondence between the two things being discussed. It may be best translated with agloss like “similarly” or “which is like.”63William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians: Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, andCommentary (AB 32; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 239, say that Paul is referring to Deut 18:1–4 and Num18:20–24. They go on to say that his “function is analogous to that of the Levitical temple servants so far as supportis concerned” (ibid., 242). Raymond Bryan Brown, “1 Corinthians,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary (vol. 10;ed. Clifton J. Allen; Nashville: Broadman, 1970), 342, says that “[p]riests in both Jewish and pagan temples receivematerial support in return for their services (Num. 18:9–32; Deut. 18:1–8).” Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians(Hermenia; trans. James W. Leitch; ed. George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 157, says that Paul is13One argument holds that while the priests were to live off of the sacrificial system bymeans of the tithes and offerings given to them, preachers64 are “to live from the gospel” (ejktou eujaggelivou zh/n). If the priests lived off the sacrificial system, and the sacrificial systemprovided them with tithes and offerings, two questions then arise: What is the relationshipbetween the gospel and tithes and offerings? And can tithes and offerings be separated from therest of the sacrificial system and be applied to the gospel ministry?The gospel is the fulfillment of that to which the ceremonial law pointed. Lenski,commenting on this verse, states it well: “Christianity has superseded the old Temple ritual. Pauldoes not need to explain this change.”65 While the sacrificial system was a shadow of thesubstitutionary death of Christ, the gospel brings that shadow into completion: no longer aresacrifices necessary, because Christ has become our sacrifice. Therefore, because of therelationship between the gospel and the sacrificial system, to import “tithes and offerings” intothe new covenant appears wholly inappropriate.66 Lenski provides the proper conclusion to thisverse: “The Old and New Testaments combine in assuring full support to God’s workers.”67From the present passage, then, the following argument could be made. Paul, in verses13–14, was saying that the apostolic/preaching ministry in this age has replaced the ministry ofthe priests and Levites. Therefore, since the priests and Levites are no longer active, apostles andpreachers should receive the tithes that formerly went to the priests and Levites. What is wrongwith this kind of reasoning?To be consistent, one would have to see Paul saying that, in some way, he is a soldier, afarmer, a shepherd, and an ox. While some of these may be understood both literally (i.e., flock =flock of animals) or metaphorically (flock = followers of Christ), it does not work for all of them
aul used the analogy of being a soldier of both himself and Timothy in 2 Tim 2:4;68 the verbreferring to Num 18:8, 31. Collins, 1 Corinthians, 342, also sees a possible reference to priests and Levites andrefers the reader to numerous verses in Leviticus. Bratcher, First Corinthians, 84, cites Num 18:8–9 [sic: 19]:31 andDeut 18:1–4. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 85, refers to Num 18:8ff. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to theCorinthians, 187 cite Num 18:8–20, 21–24 (“the Levite’s tithe”), and Deut 14:23. Interestingly, Barrett, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, 207–208, makes no mention of tithing, priests, Levites, or the Mosaic Law.64Notice that here in v. 14 he is not just referring to apostles, but to those “who preach the gospel.”65Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 367.66However, if one were to take 1 Cor 9:13–14 as the New Testament mandate for tithing, then changes to currentteaching on tithing would still need to be made. Rather than this support being a requirement of the people no matterwhat, Paul says that it would be his right to receive support. The analogy, if tithing is the referent, would be thatpeople in a church would not be obligated to tithe if the pastor decided he did not want to be paid. This, then, is achange of the presentation of the tithe in the Old Testament as being “the Lord’s” to now belonging to the pastor ifhe so chooses.67Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 368.68For other instances of this theme, see Eph 6:10–17 and 1 Tim 1:18. Only two commentators come close to thispossible analysis: Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 182: “who wages war upon evil, plantschurches, and is a shepherd to congregations”; and Garland, 1 Corinthians, 409: “Those who are soldiers in the army14used for “planting” (futeuvw) is used previously in 1 Cor three times (3:6, 7, 8) and always withthe metaphorical meaning of introducing the gospel message to a new community; the verb forshepherding (poimaivnw) is used metaphorically in Acts 20:28 by Paul (cf. Acts 20:16–18) torefer to the role of elders.69Yet nowhere does Paul refer to himself analogously as an ox or any animal similar to it.This argument would also be based upon the idea that Paul is deliberately using a doubleentendre, which is not altogether clear in this passage. Therefore, unless one can apply theillustrations or proofs consistently, their purpose should be kept in mind: the worker has the rightto be supported by his work. Again, this is all subsumed under the argument that Paul chose toforego his right, as the Corinthians were urged to do in the case of meat sacrificed to idols.For these reasons this alternative explanation of verses 13–14 is found wanting. Morelikely, Paul referred to the temple because of the context of this discussion: food sacrificed toidols. This illustration or proof is extremely pertinent because of the context of chapters 8–9.70Hence, Paul provided three illustrations from everyday life, two proofs from the Old Testament,and a final proof from Jesus. In verse 14, Paul says that Jesus “directed” (die,taxen) thosewho preached the gospel to live from the gospel, which is most closely paralleled in the Gospelsto Matt 10:10b: the worker is worthy of his provision.71 Each type of proof given by Paul isgradually more persuasive. While examples from everyday life might open the Corinthians’ eyesto what Paul was saying, and while his proofs from the OT should have been satisfactoryevidence, the argument is conclusive by citing Jesus.While Paul therefore provides six arguments to demonstrate that a worker deserves hiswages, he has nonetheless chosen to forego those rights. Consequently, the Corinthians, for thesake of the gospel, should likewise be prepared to forego their right of eating meat sacrificed toidols. As Barrett concludes, “Reason and common experience; the Old Testament; universalreligious practice; the teaching of Jesus himself: all these support the custom by which apostles(and other ministers) are maintained at the expense of the church which is built up by theirministry.”72The second potentially relevant passage in Paul’s writings is the offering mentioned in 1Cor 16. However, as noted, this passage is not directly relevant for a discussion of tithing for atleast two reasons. First, the reference is not to people’s regular giving (be it weekly or monthly)but to a special collection taken up for the poor believers in Jerusalem. Second, there is noof Christ, working in God’s vineyard, and shepherding God’s sheep also can expect to receive upkeep from theirservice.”69That verb in 1 Cor 9:7 is followed by the noun poivmnhn (“flock”), which is closely related to the word in Acts20:28: poivmnion.70See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 412; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414.71Note the parallel verse in Luke 10:7b. The only difference is that Matthew uses trofh/j while Luke usesmisqou.72Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 208.15mention of giving ten percent of one’s income by way of a regular tithe.73 When Paul discussesthe amount (“as he may prosper”), he uses a phrase that probably refers to “that in accordancewith ‘whatever success or prosperity may have come their way that week.’”74 Fee concludes:“There is no hint of a tithe or proportionate giving; the gift is simply to be related to their abilityfrom week to week as they have been prospered by God.”75Third, in 2 Cor 8:8, Paul is instructing the Corinthians that their giving was to be donefreely, as purposed in their hearts. Nothing is said about giving a specific amount or percentageof their income.76Fourth, in 2 Cor 9:7, Paul informs his readers that their giving should not be done out ofajnavgkh (“compulsion”). This word is linked with ls (“grudgingly”)77 and is set in contrastto the clause before it: e{kastos kaqw;s proh,|rhtai th/| kardiva|/ [“as each one haspurposed in his heart”]. The use of kardiva does not reflect an appeal to an emotional response,but one of “moral resolution.”78 Paul is describing to the Corinthians a type of giving that isdifferent from tithing. The Corinthians are not obligated to give to this offering; theirparticipation is voluntary. And they are not to give a prescribed amount but rather should giveaccording to their own determination. In fact, the words “should give”79 or “must do”80 have tobe provided in translation. The absence of these words in the Greek softens Paul’spronouncement.81 If a prescribed amount were predetermined, this would negate the teachingthat one can determine or “purpose” an amount in one’s heart.Paul had every opportunity to discuss tithing in these passages. His audience was notspecifically a Jewish one, which is why one might expect him to clarify or distinguish betweenfree will offerings and involuntary tithing.82 An argument from silence can be precarious, but is73For further discussion of 1 Cor 16:1–4 see the comments below.74Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians , 814.75Ibid. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 754, who explicitly states that this passage does not discuss tithing. Heconcludes, “It might be less than a tithe; it might be far more than a tithe.”76See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes (revised ed.; ed. John Walvoord; Grand Rapids: Academie Books,1974), 254.77These are virtually synonymous. So Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word, 1986), 290.78Ibid., 289.79See the NIV and NLT.80See the NASB (1995), RSV, NRSV. Note that the KJV and NKJV have “let each one give.”81So David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC 29; Nashville: Broadman, 1999), 406.82Contra Greg Long, “Give Offerings to God: Malachi 3:6–18,” Theological Educator 36 (1987): 121: “It is quitepossible that tithing was not mentioned frequently because the practice was quite well established and practiced.”However, no evidence is offered in support of this claim.16not always without weight.83 If it can be shown that a reference should have been made but wasnot, an argument from silence may have merit.On Paying TeachersThree verses in the Pastoral Epistles warn about leaders who “love money” (1 Tim 3:3; 6:10; 2Tim 3:2). While this is truly a danger, another danger that Paul warns the Corinthians about isthat of “muzzling the ox while he is threshing” (1 Cor 9:9).84 A similar verse is Gal 6:6. Adistinction is made between “the one who is taught” and “the one who teaches.”85 This passagecalls for financial support for those who teach.86 While the phrase “all good things” may refer tomore than money, it does have to do with financial support.87 Another understanding would bethat this refers to the Jerusalem collection, but this hypothesis has been satisfactorily refuted.88Therefore, we have an early teaching89 that refers to paying teachers for their service. How wasthis supposed to happen?This is where the “argument from silence” appears. Since Paul’s discussion of giving in 1Cor 16 refers to a special collection taken up among the Gentile churches for the Jerusalem83Contra Mizell, “The Standard of Giving,” 22, who asserts that “the argument from silence is always a weak one.”Note also Koester, Hebrews, 348, and Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 44, who discuss how the author of Hebrews uses thistype of argumentation.84The use of Deut 25:4 here by Paul is an example of qal wa homer (from lesser to greater). See Orr and Walther, 1Corinthians, 241.85The substantival participles oJ kathcouvmenos and tw/| kathcou/nti reflect this distinction.86See Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 335; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 263; George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (MNTC;New York: Harper, 1934), 183–85; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians,Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 235–36; contra Richard C. H.Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (Columbus:Wartburg Press, 1937), 299–300; Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: RichardR. Smith, 1931), 5.316 (who also remarks on how early this practice took hold).87See Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 183–85. While most translations retain the phrase “all goodthings,” two translations attempt to clarify it: “all his possessions” (NJB); “by paying them” (NLT).88See J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New Yorkoubleday, 1997), 551–52.89Galatians could be dated either prior to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (A.D. 48–50) or after it (A.D. 53–57). Wefavor a date between A.D. 48–50. See Carson et al., An Introduction to the New Testament, 294 (who date it A.D. 48),Ronald Y. K. Fung, Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 28 (A.D.48); Thomas D. Lea, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville: Broadman, 1996), 371 (A.D. 49–50); Ralph P. Martin and Julie L. Wu, “Galatians,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary (vol. 3;ed. Clinton E. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 265 (A.D. 48–49); and G. Walter Hansen, “Galatians, Letterto the,” in The Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin; Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1993), 328 (most likely A.D. 49).17church, his teaching on the support of ministers is limited to 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 8–9; and Gal 6:6. Noset amount or percentage is provided in these passages. In light of the fact that Paul is not writingexclusively to Jewish congregations, one would expect some explanation of tithing if the apostleintended for this practice to continue. An explanation would also be needed if the commonunderstanding of three tithes were to be corrected.90 Paul’s discussion of supporting teachers inthe above-mentioned passages shows that this was a concern for Paul. If this was an importantissue, why is there no teaching on tithing? To be sure, many religions and countries surroundingIsrael practiced some form of tithing,91 but the rules in the Mosaic Law are very specific andfairly complex, and matters are not quite as simple as giving ten percent of one’s entire income.No Christian reformulation of this doctrine is presented, even though supporting ministers seemsto have been an important issue.First Corinthians 9, 2 Cor 8–9, and Gal 6:6 would seem to be the ideal place for Paul tomention of tithing if he in fact held to such a requirement. Yet since Paul makes no reference totithing, and since neither Jesus nor any other passage in the New Testament compels Christiansto tithe, the requirement for believers to give at least ten percent of their income should bereplaced with teaching on the New Testament principles of giving sketched out below.New Testament Principles for GivingThe New Testament discusses money frequently, especially Jesus, who consistently taught on thesubject of stewardship.92 For this reason we may expect that the New Testament authors provideinstructions on giving. As will be seen below, this is in fact the case.1 Corinthians 9:1–23. As discussed above, Paul is attempting to communicate to theCorinthians that a preacher of the gospel has a right to live by the gospel. By this Paul means thatpreachers deserve to get financial support for their work (1 Cor 9:14). However, Paul acceptedno such gift from the Corinthians. While he could have asked for it, he was not required to berewarded financially for his work. He is not saying this so that he will get paid (1 Cor 9:15), butso that the Corinthians will realize that others have the right to be paid for their service.From this we can extract the principle that as a community the church must make surethat those who are over it spiritually have their needs met. When church members givefinancially to the church, they should take this into consideration. If God has provided themoney, and the pastor of a church has a legitimate need, the need should be met.90See above; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.22; Tob 1:6–9; m. Ma‘as. and m. Ma‘as Š..91It is not necessary to address here whether or not Israel was the first nation to tithe or whether other nationspracticed tithing prior to Israel’s incorporation of it into the Mosaic Law or even prior to Abraham. This is a debatedissue, but it is not pertinent to our discussion. Even though Church history is fairly one-sided, certain groups andindividuals had differing opinions about tithing and its applicability. See Thomas J. Powers, “An Historical Study ofthe Tithe in the Christian Church to 1648” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1948).92See Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, for a detailed analysis on Jesus’ teaching on stewardship. O. S.Hawkins, Money Talks: But What is it Really Saying? (United States: Annuity Board of the Southern BaptistConvention, 1999), 9, says that Jesus spoke about money or stewardship in about one-third of his parables.181 Corinthians 16:1–4. This brief section contains several principles for giving. As statedabove, there are several problems with linking the present passage to a tithing requirement. First,as noted, the reference is not to people’s regular giving (be it weekly or monthly) but to a specialcollection taken up for the poor believers in Jerusalem. Second, there is no mention of giving tenpercent of one’s income by way of a regular tithe. What is more, third, the phrase “as he mayprosper” also excludes the conclusion that a specific amount was in mind.93 For this reason Feeis surely correct when he concludes that “[t]here is no hint of a tithe or proportionate giving” inthe present passage.94While 1 Cor 16:1–4 can therefore not be legitimately used to support a tithingrequirement in the New Testament period, it is still possible to glean helpful principles for givingfrom this passage. First, giving should be done regularly. Paul tells the believers to give on thefirst day of the week (1 Cor 16:1). The practical reasons for this may be that (1) it is easier togive small amounts frequently than large sums on a monthly or even annual basis; and (2) thechurch has ongoing needs and financial obligations which requires regular weekly giving.95Second, giving should be proportionate in keeping with a household’s income. In Paul’sterms, the amount to be set aside (qhsaurivzwn) depends on the degree to which the giver hasbeen prospered (eujodw/tai). No percentage is given. This would have been an ideal place fortithing to enter into the discussion. Yet tithing is not mentioned. According to Paul, if anyone hasbeen prospered greatly, he should give a large amount. If one has prospered only a little, asmaller gift is completely acceptable.2 Corinthians 8–9. This passage provides a few additional principles for new covenantgiving. In commenting on these two chapters, Blomberg says that “grace is the entire theme ofthis entire two-chapter section.”96 In 2 Cor 8:2–3 Paul praises the Macedonians for their givingwhich was (1) according to (and, in fact, beyond) their ability; and (2) voluntary. TheMacedonians were not required to give a prescribed amount or percentage.97 Rather, they gave asthey had been prospered, according to their ability (kata; duvnamin). Their giving was93Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 814.94Ibid. See also, Garland, 1 Corinthians, 754, who explicitly says this passage is not discussing tithing. He concludesby saying, “It might be less than a tithe; it might be far more than a tithe.”95See Davis, “Are Christians Supposed to Tithe,” 97. Note however, that Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, 356, saythat the gift was kept in one’s house, not given to some treasury. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 813,states it “almost certainly” means “at home.” Contra Morris, 1 Corinthians, 233.96Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, 191. Also, Garland, 2 Corinthians, 365, mentions that the expressionappears ten out of eighteen times in 2 Corinthians and has various glosses, including “grace,” “act of grace,” “graceof giving,” “offering,” “privilege,” and “thanks.”97See Garland, 2 Corinthians, 368.19sacrificial and generous98 in that they actually gave beyond what Paul thought they were able todo. In fact, the Macedonians were considered poor, yet they still gave.99 Davis states theprinciple this way: “Sacrificial giving is measured, not by what is given, but by what remains.”100Their giving was also “of their own accord” (aujqaivretoi), a word that refers to theMacedonians’ free or spontaneous giving.101 They did not need to be asked to give. Givingshould not have to be requested. Rather, the believer should seek to find a need that he is able tomeet and thus help out a fellow believer. Notice that the Macedonians were pleading with Paul toallow them to be involved in this offering (2 Cor 8:4). Christians should be alert to findopportunities where they can use the resources God has given them.102In verse 9 Paul provides a reason for giving in the way he is prescribing: Jesus gave ofhimself. The mention of love in verse 8 prompts this thought. Our giving should be compelled bylove. The ultimate demonstration of love was Jesus’ death on the cross (see 1 John 4:9–10).Generous and willing giving occurs when the motive is love. In 2 Cor 8:12–14 Paul unfolds theprinciple that, within the Christian community, there should be some level of equality. This is notan argument for communism or thoroughgoing egalitarianism. Paul’s point is rather that no oneshould go without his or her needs being met.103 God has apparently provided the Corinthians(and others) with enough resources so that the Jerusalem believers might have their needs met.The meaning of 2 Cor 8:13 is captured well by the New Living Translation: “Of course, Idon't mean you should give so much that you suffer from having too little. I only mean that thereshould be some equality.”104 Paul does not want the Corinthians to give so much to the Jerusalemchurch that they end up needing an offering for themselves. To give so much that one ends up indebt is foolish.105 Paul’s main point in 2 Cor 8:12–14 is not that he desires the Corinthians and98See D. A. Carson, “Are Christians Required to Tithe?” Christianity Today 43 (November 15, 1999): 94, who saysthat “at the very least, we must insist that believers under both covenants are expected to give generously.”99See Garland, 2 Corinthians, 366–67. This author also notes that the Macedonians may have been able to be sosacrificial
aul used the analogy of being a soldier of both himself and Timothy in 2 Tim 2:4;68 the verbreferring to Num 18:8, 31. Collins, 1 Corinthians, 342, also sees a possible reference to priests and Levites andrefers the reader to numerous verses in Leviticus. Bratcher, First Corinthians, 84, cites Num 18:8–9 [sic: 19]:31 andDeut 18:1–4. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 85, refers to Num 18:8ff. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to theCorinthians, 187 cite Num 18:8–20, 21–24 (“the Levite’s tithe”), and Deut 14:23. Interestingly, Barrett, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, 207–208, makes no mention of tithing, priests, Levites, or the Mosaic Law.64Notice that here in v. 14 he is not just referring to apostles, but to those “who preach the gospel.”65Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 367.66However, if one were to take 1 Cor 9:13–14 as the New Testament mandate for tithing, then changes to currentteaching on tithing would still need to be made. Rather than this support being a requirement of the people no matterwhat, Paul says that it would be his right to receive support. The analogy, if tithing is the referent, would be thatpeople in a church would not be obligated to tithe if the pastor decided he did not want to be paid. This, then, is achange of the presentation of the tithe in the Old Testament as being “the Lord’s” to now belonging to the pastor ifhe so chooses.67Lenski, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 368.68For other instances of this theme, see Eph 6:10–17 and 1 Tim 1:18. Only two commentators come close to thispossible analysis: Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 182: “who wages war upon evil, plantschurches, and is a shepherd to congregations”; and Garland, 1 Corinthians, 409: “Those who are soldiers in the army14used for “planting” (futeuvw) is used previously in 1 Cor three times (3:6, 7, 8) and always withthe metaphorical meaning of introducing the gospel message to a new community; the verb forshepherding (poimaivnw) is used metaphorically in Acts 20:28 by Paul (cf. Acts 20:16–18) torefer to the role of elders.69Yet nowhere does Paul refer to himself analogously as an ox or any animal similar to it.This argument would also be based upon the idea that Paul is deliberately using a doubleentendre, which is not altogether clear in this passage. Therefore, unless one can apply theillustrations or proofs consistently, their purpose should be kept in mind: the worker has the rightto be supported by his work. Again, this is all subsumed under the argument that Paul chose toforego his right, as the Corinthians were urged to do in the case of meat sacrificed to idols.For these reasons this alternative explanation of verses 13–14 is found wanting. Morelikely, Paul referred to the temple because of the context of this discussion: food sacrificed toidols. This illustration or proof is extremely pertinent because of the context of chapters 8–9.70Hence, Paul provided three illustrations from everyday life, two proofs from the Old Testament,and a final proof from Jesus. In verse 14, Paul says that Jesus “directed” (die,taxen) thosewho preached the gospel to live from the gospel, which is most closely paralleled in the Gospelsto Matt 10:10b: the worker is worthy of his provision.71 Each type of proof given by Paul isgradually more persuasive. While examples from everyday life might open the Corinthians’ eyesto what Paul was saying, and while his proofs from the OT should have been satisfactoryevidence, the argument is conclusive by citing Jesus.While Paul therefore provides six arguments to demonstrate that a worker deserves hiswages, he has nonetheless chosen to forego those rights. Consequently, the Corinthians, for thesake of the gospel, should likewise be prepared to forego their right of eating meat sacrificed toidols. As Barrett concludes, “Reason and common experience; the Old Testament; universalreligious practice; the teaching of Jesus himself: all these support the custom by which apostles(and other ministers) are maintained at the expense of the church which is built up by theirministry.”72The second potentially relevant passage in Paul’s writings is the offering mentioned in 1Cor 16. However, as noted, this passage is not directly relevant for a discussion of tithing for atleast two reasons. First, the reference is not to people’s regular giving (be it weekly or monthly)but to a special collection taken up for the poor believers in Jerusalem. Second, there is noof Christ, working in God’s vineyard, and shepherding God’s sheep also can expect to receive upkeep from theirservice.”69That verb in 1 Cor 9:7 is followed by the noun poivmnhn (“flock”), which is closely related to the word in Acts20:28: poivmnion.70See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 412; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 414.71Note the parallel verse in Luke 10:7b. The only difference is that Matthew uses trofh/j while Luke usesmisqou.72Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 208.15mention of giving ten percent of one’s income by way of a regular tithe.73 When Paul discussesthe amount (“as he may prosper”), he uses a phrase that probably refers to “that in accordancewith ‘whatever success or prosperity may have come their way that week.’”74 Fee concludes:“There is no hint of a tithe or proportionate giving; the gift is simply to be related to their abilityfrom week to week as they have been prospered by God.”75Third, in 2 Cor 8:8, Paul is instructing the Corinthians that their giving was to be donefreely, as purposed in their hearts. Nothing is said about giving a specific amount or percentageof their income.76Fourth, in 2 Cor 9:7, Paul informs his readers that their giving should not be done out ofajnavgkh (“compulsion”). This word is linked with ls (“grudgingly”)77 and is set in contrastto the clause before it: e{kastos kaqw;s proh,|rhtai th/| kardiva|/ [“as each one haspurposed in his heart”]. The use of kardiva does not reflect an appeal to an emotional response,but one of “moral resolution.”78 Paul is describing to the Corinthians a type of giving that isdifferent from tithing. The Corinthians are not obligated to give to this offering; theirparticipation is voluntary. And they are not to give a prescribed amount but rather should giveaccording to their own determination. In fact, the words “should give”79 or “must do”80 have tobe provided in translation. The absence of these words in the Greek softens Paul’spronouncement.81 If a prescribed amount were predetermined, this would negate the teachingthat one can determine or “purpose” an amount in one’s heart.Paul had every opportunity to discuss tithing in these passages. His audience was notspecifically a Jewish one, which is why one might expect him to clarify or distinguish betweenfree will offerings and involuntary tithing.82 An argument from silence can be precarious, but is73For further discussion of 1 Cor 16:1–4 see the comments below.74Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians , 814.75Ibid. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 754, who explicitly states that this passage does not discuss tithing. Heconcludes, “It might be less than a tithe; it might be far more than a tithe.”76See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes (revised ed.; ed. John Walvoord; Grand Rapids: Academie Books,1974), 254.77These are virtually synonymous. So Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word, 1986), 290.78Ibid., 289.79See the NIV and NLT.80See the NASB (1995), RSV, NRSV. Note that the KJV and NKJV have “let each one give.”81So David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC 29; Nashville: Broadman, 1999), 406.82Contra Greg Long, “Give Offerings to God: Malachi 3:6–18,” Theological Educator 36 (1987): 121: “It is quitepossible that tithing was not mentioned frequently because the practice was quite well established and practiced.”However, no evidence is offered in support of this claim.16not always without weight.83 If it can be shown that a reference should have been made but wasnot, an argument from silence may have merit.On Paying TeachersThree verses in the Pastoral Epistles warn about leaders who “love money” (1 Tim 3:3; 6:10; 2Tim 3:2). While this is truly a danger, another danger that Paul warns the Corinthians about isthat of “muzzling the ox while he is threshing” (1 Cor 9:9).84 A similar verse is Gal 6:6. Adistinction is made between “the one who is taught” and “the one who teaches.”85 This passagecalls for financial support for those who teach.86 While the phrase “all good things” may refer tomore than money, it does have to do with financial support.87 Another understanding would bethat this refers to the Jerusalem collection, but this hypothesis has been satisfactorily refuted.88Therefore, we have an early teaching89 that refers to paying teachers for their service. How wasthis supposed to happen?This is where the “argument from silence” appears. Since Paul’s discussion of giving in 1Cor 16 refers to a special collection taken up among the Gentile churches for the Jerusalem83Contra Mizell, “The Standard of Giving,” 22, who asserts that “the argument from silence is always a weak one.”Note also Koester, Hebrews, 348, and Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 44, who discuss how the author of Hebrews uses thistype of argumentation.84The use of Deut 25:4 here by Paul is an example of qal wa homer (from lesser to greater). See Orr and Walther, 1Corinthians, 241.85The substantival participles oJ kathcouvmenos and tw/| kathcou/nti reflect this distinction.86See Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 335; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 263; George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (MNTC;New York: Harper, 1934), 183–85; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians,Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 235–36; contra Richard C. H.Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (Columbus:Wartburg Press, 1937), 299–300; Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: RichardR. Smith, 1931), 5.316 (who also remarks on how early this practice took hold).87See Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 183–85. While most translations retain the phrase “all goodthings,” two translations attempt to clarify it: “all his possessions” (NJB); “by paying them” (NLT).88See J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New Yorkoubleday, 1997), 551–52.89Galatians could be dated either prior to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (A.D. 48–50) or after it (A.D. 53–57). Wefavor a date between A.D. 48–50. See Carson et al., An Introduction to the New Testament, 294 (who date it A.D. 48),Ronald Y. K. Fung, Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 28 (A.D.48); Thomas D. Lea, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville: Broadman, 1996), 371 (A.D. 49–50); Ralph P. Martin and Julie L. Wu, “Galatians,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary (vol. 3;ed. Clinton E. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 265 (A.D. 48–49); and G. Walter Hansen, “Galatians, Letterto the,” in The Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin; Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1993), 328 (most likely A.D. 49).17church, his teaching on the support of ministers is limited to 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 8–9; and Gal 6:6. Noset amount or percentage is provided in these passages. In light of the fact that Paul is not writingexclusively to Jewish congregations, one would expect some explanation of tithing if the apostleintended for this practice to continue. An explanation would also be needed if the commonunderstanding of three tithes were to be corrected.90 Paul’s discussion of supporting teachers inthe above-mentioned passages shows that this was a concern for Paul. If this was an importantissue, why is there no teaching on tithing? To be sure, many religions and countries surroundingIsrael practiced some form of tithing,91 but the rules in the Mosaic Law are very specific andfairly complex, and matters are not quite as simple as giving ten percent of one’s entire income.No Christian reformulation of this doctrine is presented, even though supporting ministers seemsto have been an important issue.First Corinthians 9, 2 Cor 8–9, and Gal 6:6 would seem to be the ideal place for Paul tomention of tithing if he in fact held to such a requirement. Yet since Paul makes no reference totithing, and since neither Jesus nor any other passage in the New Testament compels Christiansto tithe, the requirement for believers to give at least ten percent of their income should bereplaced with teaching on the New Testament principles of giving sketched out below.New Testament Principles for GivingThe New Testament discusses money frequently, especially Jesus, who consistently taught on thesubject of stewardship.92 For this reason we may expect that the New Testament authors provideinstructions on giving. As will be seen below, this is in fact the case.1 Corinthians 9:1–23. As discussed above, Paul is attempting to communicate to theCorinthians that a preacher of the gospel has a right to live by the gospel. By this Paul means thatpreachers deserve to get financial support for their work (1 Cor 9:14). However, Paul acceptedno such gift from the Corinthians. While he could have asked for it, he was not required to berewarded financially for his work. He is not saying this so that he will get paid (1 Cor 9:15), butso that the Corinthians will realize that others have the right to be paid for their service.From this we can extract the principle that as a community the church must make surethat those who are over it spiritually have their needs met. When church members givefinancially to the church, they should take this into consideration. If God has provided themoney, and the pastor of a church has a legitimate need, the need should be met.90See above; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.22; Tob 1:6–9; m. Ma‘as. and m. Ma‘as Š..91It is not necessary to address here whether or not Israel was the first nation to tithe or whether other nationspracticed tithing prior to Israel’s incorporation of it into the Mosaic Law or even prior to Abraham. This is a debatedissue, but it is not pertinent to our discussion. Even though Church history is fairly one-sided, certain groups andindividuals had differing opinions about tithing and its applicability. See Thomas J. Powers, “An Historical Study ofthe Tithe in the Christian Church to 1648” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1948).92See Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, for a detailed analysis on Jesus’ teaching on stewardship. O. S.Hawkins, Money Talks: But What is it Really Saying? (United States: Annuity Board of the Southern BaptistConvention, 1999), 9, says that Jesus spoke about money or stewardship in about one-third of his parables.181 Corinthians 16:1–4. This brief section contains several principles for giving. As statedabove, there are several problems with linking the present passage to a tithing requirement. First,as noted, the reference is not to people’s regular giving (be it weekly or monthly) but to a specialcollection taken up for the poor believers in Jerusalem. Second, there is no mention of giving tenpercent of one’s income by way of a regular tithe. What is more, third, the phrase “as he mayprosper” also excludes the conclusion that a specific amount was in mind.93 For this reason Feeis surely correct when he concludes that “[t]here is no hint of a tithe or proportionate giving” inthe present passage.94While 1 Cor 16:1–4 can therefore not be legitimately used to support a tithingrequirement in the New Testament period, it is still possible to glean helpful principles for givingfrom this passage. First, giving should be done regularly. Paul tells the believers to give on thefirst day of the week (1 Cor 16:1). The practical reasons for this may be that (1) it is easier togive small amounts frequently than large sums on a monthly or even annual basis; and (2) thechurch has ongoing needs and financial obligations which requires regular weekly giving.95Second, giving should be proportionate in keeping with a household’s income. In Paul’sterms, the amount to be set aside (qhsaurivzwn) depends on the degree to which the giver hasbeen prospered (eujodw/tai). No percentage is given. This would have been an ideal place fortithing to enter into the discussion. Yet tithing is not mentioned. According to Paul, if anyone hasbeen prospered greatly, he should give a large amount. If one has prospered only a little, asmaller gift is completely acceptable.2 Corinthians 8–9. This passage provides a few additional principles for new covenantgiving. In commenting on these two chapters, Blomberg says that “grace is the entire theme ofthis entire two-chapter section.”96 In 2 Cor 8:2–3 Paul praises the Macedonians for their givingwhich was (1) according to (and, in fact, beyond) their ability; and (2) voluntary. TheMacedonians were not required to give a prescribed amount or percentage.97 Rather, they gave asthey had been prospered, according to their ability (kata; duvnamin). Their giving was93Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 814.94Ibid. See also, Garland, 1 Corinthians, 754, who explicitly says this passage is not discussing tithing. He concludesby saying, “It might be less than a tithe; it might be far more than a tithe.”95See Davis, “Are Christians Supposed to Tithe,” 97. Note however, that Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, 356, saythat the gift was kept in one’s house, not given to some treasury. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 813,states it “almost certainly” means “at home.” Contra Morris, 1 Corinthians, 233.96Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, 191. Also, Garland, 2 Corinthians, 365, mentions that the expressionappears ten out of eighteen times in 2 Corinthians and has various glosses, including “grace,” “act of grace,” “graceof giving,” “offering,” “privilege,” and “thanks.”97See Garland, 2 Corinthians, 368.19sacrificial and generous98 in that they actually gave beyond what Paul thought they were able todo. In fact, the Macedonians were considered poor, yet they still gave.99 Davis states theprinciple this way: “Sacrificial giving is measured, not by what is given, but by what remains.”100Their giving was also “of their own accord” (aujqaivretoi), a word that refers to theMacedonians’ free or spontaneous giving.101 They did not need to be asked to give. Givingshould not have to be requested. Rather, the believer should seek to find a need that he is able tomeet and thus help out a fellow believer. Notice that the Macedonians were pleading with Paul toallow them to be involved in this offering (2 Cor 8:4). Christians should be alert to findopportunities where they can use the resources God has given them.102In verse 9 Paul provides a reason for giving in the way he is prescribing: Jesus gave ofhimself. The mention of love in verse 8 prompts this thought. Our giving should be compelled bylove. The ultimate demonstration of love was Jesus’ death on the cross (see 1 John 4:9–10).Generous and willing giving occurs when the motive is love. In 2 Cor 8:12–14 Paul unfolds theprinciple that, within the Christian community, there should be some level of equality. This is notan argument for communism or thoroughgoing egalitarianism. Paul’s point is rather that no oneshould go without his or her needs being met.103 God has apparently provided the Corinthians(and others) with enough resources so that the Jerusalem believers might have their needs met.The meaning of 2 Cor 8:13 is captured well by the New Living Translation: “Of course, Idon't mean you should give so much that you suffer from having too little. I only mean that thereshould be some equality.”104 Paul does not want the Corinthians to give so much to the Jerusalemchurch that they end up needing an offering for themselves. To give so much that one ends up indebt is foolish.105 Paul’s main point in 2 Cor 8:12–14 is not that he desires the Corinthians and98See D. A. Carson, “Are Christians Required to Tithe?” Christianity Today 43 (November 15, 1999): 94, who saysthat “at the very least, we must insist that believers under both covenants are expected to give generously.”99See Garland, 2 Corinthians, 366–67. This author also notes that the Macedonians may have been able to be sosacrificial
