Abraham's Tithe from Spoils of War

ARGUMENT:

People who oppose tithing often claim that because Abraham’s tithe was from the spoils of war, it cannot be used as an example to teach Christian tithing.

According to this argument, the Levitical tithe did not include spoils of war. Opponents of tithing point to Numbers 31 and say, “See, after Moses, the Israelites did not tithe off of spoils of war; 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.
If Numbers 31 is proof of a Mosaic law concerning the disposition of spoils, this presents a major problem: God Himself, who gave this supposed law, immediately rejected it and did not expect anyone to follow it. Opponents of tithing repeatedly claim that Numbers 31 proves this is Mosaic law. For example, Russell Kelly cites Numbers 31 and claims it was “under the Mosaic Law,” while Brenneman says, “The Mosaic law gives instructions for dividing spoils of war in Numbers 31.” Dr. Croteau calls it “the stipulated amount required by the Mosaic law for spoils won in battle,” and Ronald Robey writes, “Under the law, God required far less than a tithe for the spoils of war (see Numbers 31).” See endnotes for references. These are just a few of many examples. Anyone familiar with this topic knows that anti-tithers constantly make this claim. However, this causes a major contradiction: if Numbers 31 is an example of actual Mosaic legislation, why did God not expect anyone to follow this law?

Numbers 31 tells the story of God commanding the Israelites to go to war with the Midianites. After the battle, God Himself tells Moses (Numbers 31:27) to divide the plunder into two parts: one half for the warriors and one half for the congregation. For the warriors, there is an assessed tax or tribute of 1 out of every 500 (or 0.2%), but for the congregation, it is 1 out of every 50 (or 2%). However, shortly after this battle, they cross the Jordan River and engage in other battles at Jericho and Ai, where the disposition of the spoils is completely different. At Jericho, it is 100%. Joshua 6:19 states, “All the silver and gold... are consecrated to the Lord; they shall come into the treasury of the Lord.” At the city of Ai, it is 0%. The Lord says in Joshua 8:2, “The spoils... you shall take... for yourselves.” Again, Joshua 8:27 states, “The livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as booty for themselves, according to the word of the Lord which He had commanded Joshua.” Opponents of tithing repeatedly fail to explain why, if Numbers 31 is a permanent law, the disposition of spoils varies so drastically in different battles. According to anti-tithers, God Himself commanded this law, but just a short time later, He commanded something totally different.

2.
Another serious problem is that opponents of tithing often claim that Abraham’s tithe is only mentioned once in Scripture; therefore, they argue he never tithed again. However, when anti-tithers read Numbers 31, they adopt a completely different standard. They claim that even though this practice is only mentioned once, it was a law recognized continually. Do you notice the double standard? Abraham lived for 175 years, and there is only one recorded story of him returning a tithe; therefore, according to anti-tithers, he never tithed again. How do they know this? They say because it is only mentioned once, it only happened once. But when it comes to the spoils of war in Numbers 31, they suddenly pivot and apply a totally different hermeneutic, arguing that a single mention is evidence of a continual law.

This proves an important point: many people who argue against tithing are so dead-set against it that everything must be interpreted in a manner that supports their anti-tithing conclusion. In other words, when anti-tithers read the Bible, every text must be bent to support their claims. Their theology is not driven by the actual text, but by their preconceived, desired conclusion. This mirrors the history of tobacco industry scientists telling the public that science proves smoking is not harmful.

According to opponents of tithing, when it comes to Abraham, one recorded story means it never happened again. But when it comes to the battle with the Midianites, one recorded story suddenly means it was a permanent law. This is a clear contradiction.

3. The third problem is Hebrews 7:9. If the Mosaic law stipulated a different percentage for the spoils of war, how can the Holy Spirit say symbolically in Hebrews 7:9 that the Levites (who were under the Mosaic law) paid tithes through Abraham’s spoils of war? If Abraham's tithe and the Mosaic law are as completely different as apples and oranges, as anti-tithers claim, how can the Levites give oranges through Abraham’s apples?

To my knowledge, no one in the anti-tithing community has ever been able to overcome these problems. In my experience, when questioned, they simply try to change the subject.

References:
Russell Earl Kelly, Should the Church Teach Tithing? (Writers Club Press, 2007), 26.
Jonathan Brenneman, The Trojan Horse of Tithing: How Tithe Traditions Have Undermined a Pure Gospel Message (Propiv Press, n.d.), p. 121, Kindle.
David A. Croteau, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?: A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving, McMaster Theological Studies Series 3 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 147, Kindle.
Ronald Robey, The Tithe of the Land (n.p., 2013), p. 9, Kindle.