Abraham was Commanded to Tithe?

Abraham's Tithe was Commanded or Voluntary?

ARGUMENT:

People who oppose tithing often make the claim that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not commanded by God, and that his tithe was only voluntary, not by divine compulsion. They assert that during the time of Abraham, there was no command or law of God to return a tithe.

According to this argument, because the Levitical tithe was commanded and Abraham's tithe was not, they are of a different type. Therefore, Abraham's tithe cannot be legitimately used as an example for Christian tithing. This argument, however, has several problems.

PROBLEMS WITH THE ARGUMENT:

1.
This is an argument from silence. Where is the Scripture that says Abraham returned the tithe voluntarily? No such verse exists. Where is the Scripture that says there was no command? It is not there. Genesis 14:20 records, “and he gave him tithes of all.” No intentions are stated, and no feelings or motives are described—only the action. If the text tells us his motives or feelings, that is fine, but it does not. Stating otherwise is simply speculation and imagination. A big problem with making arguments from silence is that the moment you step away from the text and speculate, you are in no position to tell other people that they cannot speculate.

If anti-tithers want to argue from silence, then so can other people. When confronted about this, anti-tithers will typically respond, “Well, there is no Bible verse showing a law of tithing during Abraham’s time! Nowhere does the Bible say he was commanded.” And this is correct. The absence of an explicit command, however, does not mean that a command did not exist.

2.
A second serious problem is that in Genesis 14:23, Abraham tells the king of Sodom that he had vowed not to “take anything that is yours.” The Hebrew language used here contains a particle preposition and a second-person suffix (לך), which is why it is consistently translated as “that is yours.” These spoils of war had previously belonged to the King of Sodom, were lost after being conquered, and then became the property of Abraham by right of victory in war.

For those people who argue against tithing, this is a big problem. If Abraham had vowed not to keep the spoils of war that had previously belonged to the King of Sodom, then this would not explain why he gave 10% to Melchizedek. That Abraham vowed not to keep anything belonging to the King of Sodom, yet still gave 10% to the priest of the Most High God, is textual evidence that Abraham considered the tenth as rightfully belonging neither to himself nor to the King of Sodom, but to Melchizedek. If he swore to return all (100%) but only returned 90%, then this is evidence that there existed an obligation to give 10%.

Some anti-tithers recognize this problem, so they claim that while Abraham’s act of tithing was not in obedience to God, it was in obedience to a law of ancient Babylon, Canaan, or some local tribal custom. This, however, only creates more problems because Abraham lived only a few hundred years after Noah’s flood. How exactly did the ancient nations happen to share the belief that the tenth was a divine obligation? Dr. David Croteau, Professor of New Testament, writes in his doctoral dissertation, “there is nothing in nature, and no one can reason, that 10 percent of all one’s increase should be given to God.” The only reasonable explanation for the consistent use of 10% must be divine revelation either at or before the flood. A research paper at Biola University observed "The historical evidence of the widespread practice of tithing among pagan nations is perhaps the biggest single thorn in the side of [those who argue tithing is abolished]."

3.
The third problem is that God previously gave Abraham a system of laws, commandments, and statutes. This being true, how then can anti-tithers state with any certainty that the tithe was not one of these? Genesis 26:5 states, “Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”

For example, suppose a father said he gave a bunch of toys to his children. How can anyone then say a toy airplane was not included unless they have a detailed list of the toys? In the same way, anti-tithers have no way to prove that the tithe was not one of these laws, commandments, and statutes. Stating otherwise is, again, just speculation.

Furthermore, biblical scholars and theologians repeatedly comment that the language of Genesis 26:5 is the same legalistic language used in the Mosaic law:

Old Testament professor Dr. Bruce Waltke notes: “Genesis is part of the Pentateuch and should be interpreted within that context. In Deut. 11:1 the same list of terms refers to the whole law of Moses. The text shows that the person of faith does not live by law but keeps the law.” [
Old Testament Scholar Claus Westermann writes: “Abraham is here the exemplar of obedience to the law…this could have been pronounced and written only in a period when Israel's relationship to God was centered on its obedience to the law; as the language of v. 5 clearly shows…The collation of the terms for command and law in v. 5 presupposes the language of Deuteronomy.”
Dr. John Sailhamer observes that because the terminology in Genesis 26:5 mirrors that used elsewhere to describe the entire Mosaic Law (e.g., Deut. 11:1), there is little doubt this passage indicates Abraham was acting in accordance with that legal framework [1].
Similarly, Dr. Victor P. Hamilton notes that this passage, referencing "my commandments, my laws, my instructions," portrays Abraham as a model of obedience, functioning under the same covenantal structure later detailed in Deuteronomy [1].

Sources:
Waltke, B. (2001). Genesis. Zondervan Academic. p. 368;
Westermann, C. (1985). Genesis 12-36 (J. J. Scullion, Trans.). Augsburg Fortress. pp. 424-425;
Sailhamer, J. (1992). The Pentateuch as narrative: A biblical-theological commentary. Zondervan. pp. 70, 67;
Hamilton, V. (1995). The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 194.
B. Scot Williams, "The Christian and the Practice of Tithing: A Theological Study" (Th.M. thesis, Talbot School of Theology, 1986), 87.
Croteau, David A., "A Biblical and Theological Analysis of Tithing: Toward a Theology of Giving in the New Covenant Era" (2005). Faculty Dissertations. 17. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/fac_dis/17