Did Abraham Tithe Before the Law?

Tithing on Trial

As we continue our ‘Tithing on Trial’ series, we will evaluate the most common tithing arguments used to defend its practice.

Argument # 11 – Abraham Tithed 430 Years Prior to the Law

The argument here is that Abraham tithed prior to the law of Moses, therefore it should be continued since it was outside of the fulfilled law of the Old Testament.  To me, the cross fulfilled laws beyond the Mosaic law, but I understand that some don’t see it that way.

The Mosaic Law

Abraham did tithe before the Mosaic law, but that shouldn’t satisfy any answers regarding tithing. Was the Mosaic law the only portion of Old Testament laws that were fulfilled by the cross; and does this mean that any laws inside or outside those bounds are subject to fulfillment in the New Testament? The Sunday Sabbath, clean animals, animal sacrifices, & circumcision were all practiced prior to the Mosaic law, and yet they are excluded from New Testament practices. When you look at these four laws, you realize tithing isn’t an exclusive pre-mosaic ordinance.

The problem with basing our current practices on any practice that was pre-mosaic is that you are defending a practice based on a marker that is proven to be insignificant for the NT Church. NT Scripture wasn’t compelled to mention that clean meats, animal sacrifices, & circumcision were not required just because the change in law had to be reiterated in the New Church Covenant. The cross nullified those laws because pre-mosaic practices had no consequence for the Church in the first place. God’s instructions were not this – “I want you to obey all the laws that came before Moses, with the exception of sacrifices, clean meats & circumcision”. There was no need to add amendments to the New Covenant.  Simply put – clean meats, sacrifices and circumcision are dead laws because of Calvary, not because the NT happened to clarify it for us after Calvary.

It was Adam Not Moses

Scripture focuses on when sin entered the world through one man and when the penalty of sin was paid for by another.  Christ didn’t die on the cross to save us from the Mosaic law; he died because of Adam’s flaw. The focus of Christ’s death was about the law of sin and death that was introduced by Adam not the law that was introduced by Moses. The bible focuses so much on the Mosaic law because the Hebrew culture was so saturated with it in their every-day life. Because of this, we unintentionally forget that Christ wasn’t here to fulfill the Mosaic laws. If he only did that, it would be great news for the Jews but not for the gentiles since it wasn’t the Mosaic law that gentiles were slaves to.

So Let’s Follow Abraham’s Example

Let’s say for a moment that we are to follow Abraham’s example prior to the Law of Moses. There are two big problems with this.

First, Abraham only gave from the spoils of war and not from his own wealth. Hebrews chapter 7 clarifies that Abraham Gave Melchizedek the spoils of war. There is no mention that he gave anything from his own wealth. Maybe he just tithed for the week so he was already paid up except for the spoils of war. I don’t know. You tell me.

Second, Israel was instructed to give 1/500th of the spoils of war (Numbers 31). If tithing is really a permanent ordinance then why was Israel instructed specifically by God to give less from their increase? If Abraham’s practice was not binding enough for God to ask Israel to do it, then why is it even considered binding for a New Testament Church, after Calvary, & led by the Holy Spirit?

A Look at Jacob’s Tithing vow

Abraham wasn’t the only occurrence of tithing prior to the Mosaic law, Jacob made a tithing vow to God as well. So, his example also shines some light on this topic also. We did an in-depth study on Jacob’s tithing vow here: Part 1 & Part 2. So I don’t want to go too deep into this. I just want to highlight a valid point that pertains to the current topic.

Jacob’s vow indicates that tithing was not required because he willingly offered it. You can’t offer God something that was already required in the first place and get away with pulling a fast-one. Abraham’s example doesn’t indicate whether tithing was required or not, but we can know for certain through Jacob’s example that it wasn’t. What do you use to determine biblical doctrine? Would it be the the facts found in Jacob’s example or would it be speculation through Abraham’s?

You Be The Judge

Now it’s time for the jury to weigh in:

Does Abraham's example before the Mosaic law mean we should tithe?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Jared Brian is the author of www.tithing.com. There are over 300 articles written on research and reviews about tithing information.

Tagged with: , ,
115 comments on “Did Abraham Tithe Before the Law?
  1. I apologize for not reading the rest of the comments, it is possible that someone may have already responded with this answer.

    I have the following:

    Hebrews 7:2a
    “To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all”

    It does not specify that the tithe was ‘only’ the spoils of war. Which would explain the second part of the Abraham paragraphs.

    The Jacob thing is an indicator that he had the ability to tithe otherwise he would note have made the ‘vow’.

    • Tatjana Virant Kramar says:

      Verse 7:4 of Hebrews mentions “spoils”, or the “best spoils”. In greek it means something like “from the top of the heap”. The situation is UNIQUE: Abraham was getting back from the unique battle. He conquered people and took their possessions. He did not bring his own possessions to the battlefield! It does not make sense that Abraham would drag all he had, all HIS possessions, into the campaign! Unique situation – not repeated ever again. That’s why letter of Hebrews, thousands of years later, mentions specifics… IF Abraham “tithed” later also, especially on regular basis, – would it not be mention somewhere, especially to the Hebrews?

  2. John says:

    Sorry Doug. The tithe is not an old covenant law. It never was citing its origin. It’s presumed eternal.

    • Tatjana Virant Kramar says:

      Presumed?!? that’s the problem with tithers, assuming.. Remember God never told to ANYONE before the Law to tithe, never mentioned it to Adam and Eve, never mentioned it to Abram either..let alone as a command or request! He also assumed/presumed..If it is sooo important and “eternal” how come God did not explicitly say something to Adam? (Since He told the everything they needed to know pertaining to life). Abram lived in Ur of the Chaldeans… even there people had some good habits regarding respect BUT – the fact remains, tithing is NOT God’s idea prior to the law! That’s Bible.

      • John says:

        The employment of the word Eternal was based on Heb 7:3.

        [Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God]

        Since the tithe has no origin it can presume as eternal just like the origin of Melchizedec biblically.

        Did Adam receive the covenant?

        the genesis book does not contain details of the life of Adam despite he existed for 920 years.

        however in hosea, it is written that Adam did receive a covenant from God and later handed down to Abraham.

        [Hosea 6:7
        As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.]

        Whatever Covenant Adam received we’re sure it’s the same covenant that Abraham and Moses had received and the writers don’t have to repeat over and over again to make their purpose served.

        • Jared Brian says:

          Since the tithe has no origin it can presume as eternal just like the origin of Melchizedec biblically.

          What? You just pulled this argument out of thin air with no precedent. So many falehoods start out the way you’ve written this statement.
          Since we don’t know the origins of the universe it can presume that a big bang created everything
          Since we can’t prove theres a god it can presume there is none
          since there’s so much pain and suffering in the world it can presume that there is no loving God.
          Since there’s no mention of Jesus not having a heart tattoo on his chest we can presume he did have one.

          Don’t say things like you just said without being able to back it up with some sort of precedent.
          Melchizedek had no beginning of days nor end. The irony of your statement is that the tithe is only 10%. How can something that’s a fraction of everything mean eternal? God didn’t give 10%. Jesus didn’t give 10%? Why do you think God focused so much on circumcision and living a circumspect life. Because a circle is a symbol of eternity. Did God ask us to live 10% lives? Did Abraham only cut off 10% of his foreskin?

          • John says:

            Melchizedek has a small portion in the Genesis story and almost no information with regards to the origin of his bloodline such as in the case of Job.

            But we do believe both men have existed in the ancient times even without proof because they’re part of the biblical history and so it’s generally accepted by the church.

            Only Paul in his epistle mentioned his existence as he compared him with the son of God.

            what about u? if u were in Paul shoes would u believe on Melchi’s existence?

            it’s the same thing with the tithe. what is ur opinion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*