Book Review: David Croteau's You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?: A Deconstruction of Tithing and a Reconstruction of Post-Tithe Giving
Dr. David Croteau deserves credit for publishing what is arguably the most thorough attempt to refute arguments for tithing. You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe? A Deconstruction of Tithing, published in 2010, is based on his 2005 doctoral dissertation. With over 1,800 footnotes and a bibliography of at least 850 resources, Dr. Croteau clearly invested an enormous amount of time and effort reviewing publications from tithe proponents, especially over the last several centuries, and examining every detail of their arguments. However, Croteau’s thorough awareness does cause significant problems with his attempt at deconstruction.
The book is easy to read and maintains a largely neutral tone for what is sometimes a polarizing topic. Only about 25% of the book directly addresses and seeks to deconstruct actual scriptural arguments for tithing, while the remaining 75% provides a survey of history and various systematic and hermeneutical issues. Dr. Croteau concludes the book by seeking to provide a “post-tithing paradigm” (p. 21) for Christian giving. Any serious student of stewardship and tithing would benefit from studying Croteau’s arguments and identifying their major weaknesses, which can be summarized as follows:
Problem #1: Ancient Pagans
Archaeological and historical evidence demonstrates an interesting phenomenon: returning the tithe was widespread among ancient pagan nations. Dr. Croteau lists Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Sumerian, and other examples. While he does point out that the practice itself was not entirely uniform in every culture, this still does not answer two larger problems: How did so many different ancient pagan civilizations arrive at the tenth? And how did they know that the tenth was due to God?
Dr. Croteau himself states that “There is nothing in nature, and no one can reason, that 10 percent of all one’s increase should be given to God.” (p. 271) If this is true, then how do we answer these perplexing questions? The only reasonable answer ever offered in pro-tithing literature is divine revelation—either at or before the Flood.
In the 1980s, a research paper from Biola University observing this dilemma made the following observation: “The historical evidence of the widespread practice of tithing among pagan nations is perhaps the biggest single thorn in the side of evangelical advocates of the abolished commandment position.” It is worth noting that Dr. Croteau cites this exact same Biola paper in his dissertation and book (pp. 84, 140, 145), yet for some strange reason he completely avoided any attempt to deconstruct this problem. It is remarkable that after utilizing over 850 resources, Dr. Croteau never found an answer.
Problem #2: ‘Abraham borrowed from pagans’.
Any argument made to deconstruct tithing will inevitably have to address the story of Abraham tithing in Genesis 14. Dr. Croteau seeks to accomplish this with a multi-pronged approach, making various claims—one being that “it seems probable that Abraham was borrowing” tithe from the Babylonians and that “he borrowed from the practice of the surrounding culture” (p. 128). Unfortunately, Dr. Croteau does not offer any evidence for this. He does say, “No evidence exists that Abraham was commanded to tithe,” but it is just as true that there is no evidence his tithe was due to Babylonian custom. The reader of the Bible is given no explicit statement on how Abraham learned about tithing.
Problem #3 – Love and “exceeding righteousness”
The most telling omission in Croteau’s work is his failure to deconstruct or refute the "argument of love" or “exceeding righteousness.” Though it is a cornerstone of pro-tithing literature, Croteau abruptly dismisses it as “specious.” Pro-tithing advocates have repeatedly argued that because Christians, compelled by the love of Christ (2 Cor 5:14), must excel in the grace of giving (2 Cor 8:7), then ten percent should serve as the minimum for supporting gospel work. For example, Costen Harrell asks, “Can anyone suppose that love that went to the Cross demands from us a smaller gift than the people who knew not Christ brought to the altars of ancient Israel?” Robert Hastings asks “Is there more power in force than love? Is law greater than grace? Is legalism more compulsive than personal salvation?” This reasoning is so ubiquitous in pro-tithing literature that Croteau himself lists at least 18 authors who employ it (Appendix C, p. 396). Yet, he merely labels the argument "specious" without providing a single piece of evidence or exegesis to justify the pejorative. This begs the question: If the argument is so ubiquitous, yet so flawed, then why not make any attempt to refute it? How does one write an entire dissertation claiming to deconstruct or refute the pro-tithing position, while completely bypassing one of its key, linchpin arguments?
Problem #4: ‘Spoils of war’
People who seek to deconstruct arguments for tithing often claim that Abraham’s tithe is not comparable to the Levitical tithe because—according to anti-tithers—no tithe was required from spoils of war under Mosaic law. Croteau does this repeatedly. For example, he writes, “According to Num. 31…the stipulated amount required by the Mosaic law for spoils won in battle is different than what Abraham actually offered Melchizedek” (p. 147); again, “Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek; but the Mosaic law gives a different computation of what is required in battle victory” (p. 147); and again, “There is another problem that should be addressed with the view of a pre-revealed Mosaic law…. As seen above, Abraham did not give the prescribed amount as an offering when winning spoils in war (cf. Num. 31)” (p. 269).
Croteau repeatedly claims that Numbers 31 prescribes a Mosaic law for the disposition of spoils of war. Yet if that were true, it presents a serious problem: this “law” is in no way acknowledged or followed in the two subsequent battles at Jericho and Ai. If this is indeed the law, then why is nobody—including God himself—following it? This is another significant problem that Dr. Croteau failed to address.
Problem #5: ‘Abraham tithed one time’
On page 147, Croteau observes, “Nothing in the present passage indicates that Abraham continually gave a tenth of his increase,” but it is just as true that the passage does not indicate he never tithed again. In Table 5, Croteau contrasts Abraham’s “occasional” tithe with the Mosaic “systematic” tithe, but how does Croteau know it was only occasional?
There is no record of Abraham singing—does that mean we should assume he never sang a song during his entire 175 years? Scripture records Abraham calling on the name of the Lord only three times (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 21:33), but simply because it is mentioned only three times does not mean he never did it again. One recorded event is simply one recorded event: it does not prove he did it continually, nor does it substantiate the claim of “occasional.”
Notice the inconsistency: How can Croteau claim that one mention in Numbers 31 constitutes systematic “Mosaic law,” but one mention of Abraham’s tithe does not constitute a systematic practice? Croteau cannot have it both ways.
Problem #6: ‘Abraham not commanded’
Croteau states, “Abraham was not obeying some pre-revelation of the Mosaic law” (p. 147), but how does Croteau know this? He offers zero evidence—only speculation. This is problematic because Croteau criticizes others for making claims without any scriptural support, yet he does the same thing here.
Genesis 26:5 provides evidence that Abraham kept God's laws, commandments, and statutes. Dr. Croteau seems to sense the dilemma and attempts to draw a dichotomy: the laws in Genesis 26:5 are “God’s law” rather than “Mosaic law” (p. 408). But this does not resolve the problem: How does Dr. Croteau know that tithing was not one of God’s laws?
As multiple Old Testament scholars have repeatedly pointed out, the language of Genesis 26:5 uses the same legalistic terminology found in the Mosaic law—a point that undermines rather than supports Dr. Croteau’s claims (see Waltke 2001; Westermann 1985; Sailhamer 1992; Hamilton 1995; Barndollar 1959).
Problem #7: ‘Abraham did not tithe of his possessions’
This is a serious claim because it implies Abraham was a thief. Croteau repeatedly asserts that Abraham’s tithe was not from his own possessions. For example, he writes, “Abraham surely gave a tenth to Melchizedek, but it was a tenth of the spoils and not of his own possessions” (p. 131), and in Table 5 he states “not of his possessions” (p. 147).
If Dr. Croteau’s claim is true, it creates a serious problem: Abram took property belonging to the king of Sodom and gave it (or a portion of it) to someone else. If the spoils of war were not Abraham’s rightful possession, then Abraham would be a thief—he took someone else’s possessions and returned a tithe from them.
Croteau’s position contradicts that of other historians and scholars who affirm that “The victor is due his share for risking his life and fortune… The victor, not a defeated king, has the right to stipulate the disposition of the spoils of war” (Waltke). Croteau has thus far failed to deconstruct the standard argument and has only made it worse by implying—perhaps unintentionally—that Abraham was a thief.
Problem #8 – Hebrews 7:9
Those like Dr. Croteau who attempt to argue against tithing face the significant challenge of separating Abraham’s tithe from the Mosaic tithe. For example, on page 114 he states, “Abraham’s offering is not consistent with the requirements of Mosaic law.” Croteau attempts to construct this dichotomy through various claims (some addressed in previous points), but this approach creates a major problem in Hebrews 7.
The author of Hebrews declares that symbolically—even the Levites—paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham (Heb. 7:9–10). This passage has long been a serious obstacle for anti-tithing arguments because, if Abraham’s tithe is truly distinct and separate from the Levitical tithe (occasional, from spoils, non-commanded, customary), then how can it be said that the Levites paid a holy, systematic, non-spoils, commanded tithe through Abraham’s one-time act to a priest of a completely different priesthood?
That Croteau was aware of this argument is clear: he cites books that employ Hebrews 7:9 for precisely this purpose, yet remarkably—in over 530 pages (Kindle version)—he makes no effort to address or deconstruct the problem. Furthermore, on page 186, when Croteau does reference Hebrews 7:9, he affirms that the text “proves the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood.” But this only begs the question: How is the superiority proved if Abraham’s tithe is of a completely different nature from the Levites’ tithe? How can the Levites symbolically prove anything by paying tithe “as Babylonian custom” through Abraham?
To underscore the point, Croteau notes that Miller (1873), among others, helped lay the “foundations for the tithe movement,” yet Miller himself repeatedly used this very argument from Hebrews 7:9. Croteau would have been well aware of this line of reasoning—yet he again made no effort to engage or refute it.
Problem #9 – Hebrews 7:8
Dr. Croteau himself admits that in Hebrews chapter 7 “the fact that Melchizedek received a tithe from Abraham is the central argument for Melchizedek’s superiority” (p. 187). This immediately raises the question: How is Christ superior if He does not now receive tithes? And if Christ is of the exact same tithe-receiving order as Melchizedek, why would Christ not receive them today?
Croteau attempts to address the typological argument by claiming it is problematic because “if Abraham were a picture of Christians, his tithe was voluntary; he offered it as a thanksgiving for victory.” But as noted in previous points, there is no evidence for this claim—it is, again, pure speculation.
Furthermore, this only compounds the issue in the very same chapter. Croteau acknowledges that the “central argument” is Melchizedek’s superiority, yet many authors have repeatedly pointed out: How can Melchizedek’s superiority be proven if Abraham’s payment was merely a voluntary gift? If Abraham was only giving a thankful offering, it would demonstrate Abraham’s generosity, not Melchizedek’s superiority.
To quote Miller (1873): “Had it been a free gift from Abram, it would have proved his greatness above Melchizedek’s, for the giver is greater than the receiver. But when anything is paid as a tribute, it proves the receiver to be greater than the payer. Therefore, unless Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek as a tribute due to him, the Apostle’s argument is not only inconclusive, but it proves the contrary of what he affirmed.”
Dr. Croteau, having read hundreds of years of tithing literature, would have encountered this argument repeatedly. Yet in his several-hundred-page dissertation (and resulting 2010 book), he appears to have completely ignored it. Once again, he claims to refute and deconstruct arguments for tithing while failing to engage one of the most direct and historically persistent biblical challenges to his position.
Problem #10: 1 Corinthians 9:13-14
This is one of the most common and foundational texts used to support tithing because it cites the Levitical model and appeals directly to the command of the Lord for the support of those who preach the gospel. Due to the clear textual evidence, Croteau (along with other scholars) openly admits that verse 13 “is a reference to the priests who served in the temple as prescribed in the Mosaic covenant.” Croteau objects to the pro-tithing application, however, arguing that it is inconsistent. He writes, “To be consistent, one would have to view Paul saying that, in some way, he is a soldier, a farmer, a shepherd, and an ox.”
Pro-tithing advocates have argued that Paul in verse 14 refers specifically to verse 13 as the applicable model for gospel support. Croteau however says that for consistency, all prior examples (soldier, farmer, shepherd, ox) must be included. He does concede that the passage teaches “the worker has the right to be supported by his work,” but he denies that this includes a mandatory, minimum 10% tithe. However, at least four serious problems unravel Croteau’s assertion:
1. The nature of the work: The soldier, farmer, shepherd, and ox are not performing a specific religious service, whereas those “serving in the temple” and “at the altar” are engaged in sacred, priestly ministry.
2. The nature of the payment: Payment to a soldier or farmer is never described as an act of worship offered to God, whereas the tithe is repeatedly defined as given to the Lord (e.g., Num. 18:24, 26–28).
3. The holiness of the offering: Payment to a soldier or farmer is never called “holy to the Lord,” but the Levitical tithe is explicitly designated as holy (Lev. 27:30, 32; Num. 18:32). These distinctions set the temple/altar service (v. 13) apart from the prior analogies.
4. Syntactical and structural parallelism: As Professor Gordon Fee notes, “The one thing that is certain is that all the prior examples are analogies pure and simple, from which Paul extracts a principle. Here the example is precise, and the ‘command’ a word related directly to his and their situation.” Roy Ciampa further observes that “the parallel highlights the relationship between preaching the gospel and serving in the temple or at the altar,” and “the content of the Lord’s command in v. 14 closely parallels the syntactical structures found in the previous verse.” This pattern is absent from the earlier examples (soldier, farmer, etc.).
Dr. Croteau’s final attempt to dismiss 1 Corinthians 9:13–14 is to claim that tithing was limited to the Mosaic law and that “the gospel is the fulfillment of that to which the Mosaic law pointed” (p. 194). But this only circles back to the earlier problems concerning Abraham: If tithing originated only under the Mosaic law, how can it be said that the Levites symbolically “returned tithe” through Abraham (Heb. 7:9–10)? That claim makes no sense if tithing is strictly limited only to the Levitical priesthood. Croteau’s position thus undermines the very typological argument the author of Hebrews uses. Furthermore, why would the Holy Spirit through Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 invoke the example of tithes and offerings as “even so” and “in the same manner” for the gospel if (according to Croteau) the gospel did away with this very means of support? These are opposing claims and thus cannot both be correct.
Problem #11: ‘New Paradigm’ problems.
Croteau promised that after removing tithing he would “construct a new paradigm, a post-tithing paradigm.” (p. 20) In this new paradigm he says “every believer should give” and “All Christians should give something.” (pp. 341, 357) “Giving should be compelled by love” and “grace-driven” and that Christians must “give generously” because “generous giving proves the genuineness of a Christian’s love for God.” (pp. 335, 341) But then Croteau contradicts himself by claiming giving should be “heart-based” and “determined in one’s heart” (pp. 347, 342) but then flips and says giving “should not ‘depend on our whim or personal feeling.’” (p. 345) This “new paradigm” can’t even be applied in daily life because it’s based on a contradiction: How does one not give by personal feelings if one determines giving in your own heart?
He says “Christians need to be willing to give whatever the Lord may ask” even if it’s “%100” but how exactly does anyone know what exactly the Lord is asking? He says “obedience to his leading is key” (pp. 343, 357) but again, what objective criteria determines how much the Lord is leading to give? Disobedience is a serious thing. What if the Lord is asking %63 this month and your heart tells you it’s only %37 or even %7? This is a serious dilemma.
The book is easy to read and maintains a largely neutral tone for what is sometimes a polarizing topic. Only about 25% of the book directly addresses and seeks to deconstruct actual scriptural arguments for tithing, while the remaining 75% provides a survey of history and various systematic and hermeneutical issues. Dr. Croteau concludes the book by seeking to provide a “post-tithing paradigm” (p. 21) for Christian giving. Any serious student of stewardship and tithing would benefit from studying Croteau’s arguments and identifying their major weaknesses, which can be summarized as follows:
Problem #1: Ancient Pagans
Archaeological and historical evidence demonstrates an interesting phenomenon: returning the tithe was widespread among ancient pagan nations. Dr. Croteau lists Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Sumerian, and other examples. While he does point out that the practice itself was not entirely uniform in every culture, this still does not answer two larger problems: How did so many different ancient pagan civilizations arrive at the tenth? And how did they know that the tenth was due to God?
Dr. Croteau himself states that “There is nothing in nature, and no one can reason, that 10 percent of all one’s increase should be given to God.” (p. 271) If this is true, then how do we answer these perplexing questions? The only reasonable answer ever offered in pro-tithing literature is divine revelation—either at or before the Flood.
In the 1980s, a research paper from Biola University observing this dilemma made the following observation: “The historical evidence of the widespread practice of tithing among pagan nations is perhaps the biggest single thorn in the side of evangelical advocates of the abolished commandment position.” It is worth noting that Dr. Croteau cites this exact same Biola paper in his dissertation and book (pp. 84, 140, 145), yet for some strange reason he completely avoided any attempt to deconstruct this problem. It is remarkable that after utilizing over 850 resources, Dr. Croteau never found an answer.
Problem #2: ‘Abraham borrowed from pagans’.
Any argument made to deconstruct tithing will inevitably have to address the story of Abraham tithing in Genesis 14. Dr. Croteau seeks to accomplish this with a multi-pronged approach, making various claims—one being that “it seems probable that Abraham was borrowing” tithe from the Babylonians and that “he borrowed from the practice of the surrounding culture” (p. 128). Unfortunately, Dr. Croteau does not offer any evidence for this. He does say, “No evidence exists that Abraham was commanded to tithe,” but it is just as true that there is no evidence his tithe was due to Babylonian custom. The reader of the Bible is given no explicit statement on how Abraham learned about tithing.
Problem #3 – Love and “exceeding righteousness”
The most telling omission in Croteau’s work is his failure to deconstruct or refute the "argument of love" or “exceeding righteousness.” Though it is a cornerstone of pro-tithing literature, Croteau abruptly dismisses it as “specious.” Pro-tithing advocates have repeatedly argued that because Christians, compelled by the love of Christ (2 Cor 5:14), must excel in the grace of giving (2 Cor 8:7), then ten percent should serve as the minimum for supporting gospel work. For example, Costen Harrell asks, “Can anyone suppose that love that went to the Cross demands from us a smaller gift than the people who knew not Christ brought to the altars of ancient Israel?” Robert Hastings asks “Is there more power in force than love? Is law greater than grace? Is legalism more compulsive than personal salvation?” This reasoning is so ubiquitous in pro-tithing literature that Croteau himself lists at least 18 authors who employ it (Appendix C, p. 396). Yet, he merely labels the argument "specious" without providing a single piece of evidence or exegesis to justify the pejorative. This begs the question: If the argument is so ubiquitous, yet so flawed, then why not make any attempt to refute it? How does one write an entire dissertation claiming to deconstruct or refute the pro-tithing position, while completely bypassing one of its key, linchpin arguments?
Problem #4: ‘Spoils of war’
People who seek to deconstruct arguments for tithing often claim that Abraham’s tithe is not comparable to the Levitical tithe because—according to anti-tithers—no tithe was required from spoils of war under Mosaic law. Croteau does this repeatedly. For example, he writes, “According to Num. 31…the stipulated amount required by the Mosaic law for spoils won in battle is different than what Abraham actually offered Melchizedek” (p. 147); again, “Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek; but the Mosaic law gives a different computation of what is required in battle victory” (p. 147); and again, “There is another problem that should be addressed with the view of a pre-revealed Mosaic law…. As seen above, Abraham did not give the prescribed amount as an offering when winning spoils in war (cf. Num. 31)” (p. 269).
Croteau repeatedly claims that Numbers 31 prescribes a Mosaic law for the disposition of spoils of war. Yet if that were true, it presents a serious problem: this “law” is in no way acknowledged or followed in the two subsequent battles at Jericho and Ai. If this is indeed the law, then why is nobody—including God himself—following it? This is another significant problem that Dr. Croteau failed to address.
Problem #5: ‘Abraham tithed one time’
On page 147, Croteau observes, “Nothing in the present passage indicates that Abraham continually gave a tenth of his increase,” but it is just as true that the passage does not indicate he never tithed again. In Table 5, Croteau contrasts Abraham’s “occasional” tithe with the Mosaic “systematic” tithe, but how does Croteau know it was only occasional?
There is no record of Abraham singing—does that mean we should assume he never sang a song during his entire 175 years? Scripture records Abraham calling on the name of the Lord only three times (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 21:33), but simply because it is mentioned only three times does not mean he never did it again. One recorded event is simply one recorded event: it does not prove he did it continually, nor does it substantiate the claim of “occasional.”
Notice the inconsistency: How can Croteau claim that one mention in Numbers 31 constitutes systematic “Mosaic law,” but one mention of Abraham’s tithe does not constitute a systematic practice? Croteau cannot have it both ways.
Problem #6: ‘Abraham not commanded’
Croteau states, “Abraham was not obeying some pre-revelation of the Mosaic law” (p. 147), but how does Croteau know this? He offers zero evidence—only speculation. This is problematic because Croteau criticizes others for making claims without any scriptural support, yet he does the same thing here.
Genesis 26:5 provides evidence that Abraham kept God's laws, commandments, and statutes. Dr. Croteau seems to sense the dilemma and attempts to draw a dichotomy: the laws in Genesis 26:5 are “God’s law” rather than “Mosaic law” (p. 408). But this does not resolve the problem: How does Dr. Croteau know that tithing was not one of God’s laws?
As multiple Old Testament scholars have repeatedly pointed out, the language of Genesis 26:5 uses the same legalistic terminology found in the Mosaic law—a point that undermines rather than supports Dr. Croteau’s claims (see Waltke 2001; Westermann 1985; Sailhamer 1992; Hamilton 1995; Barndollar 1959).
Problem #7: ‘Abraham did not tithe of his possessions’
This is a serious claim because it implies Abraham was a thief. Croteau repeatedly asserts that Abraham’s tithe was not from his own possessions. For example, he writes, “Abraham surely gave a tenth to Melchizedek, but it was a tenth of the spoils and not of his own possessions” (p. 131), and in Table 5 he states “not of his possessions” (p. 147).
If Dr. Croteau’s claim is true, it creates a serious problem: Abram took property belonging to the king of Sodom and gave it (or a portion of it) to someone else. If the spoils of war were not Abraham’s rightful possession, then Abraham would be a thief—he took someone else’s possessions and returned a tithe from them.
Croteau’s position contradicts that of other historians and scholars who affirm that “The victor is due his share for risking his life and fortune… The victor, not a defeated king, has the right to stipulate the disposition of the spoils of war” (Waltke). Croteau has thus far failed to deconstruct the standard argument and has only made it worse by implying—perhaps unintentionally—that Abraham was a thief.
Problem #8 – Hebrews 7:9
Those like Dr. Croteau who attempt to argue against tithing face the significant challenge of separating Abraham’s tithe from the Mosaic tithe. For example, on page 114 he states, “Abraham’s offering is not consistent with the requirements of Mosaic law.” Croteau attempts to construct this dichotomy through various claims (some addressed in previous points), but this approach creates a major problem in Hebrews 7.
The author of Hebrews declares that symbolically—even the Levites—paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham (Heb. 7:9–10). This passage has long been a serious obstacle for anti-tithing arguments because, if Abraham’s tithe is truly distinct and separate from the Levitical tithe (occasional, from spoils, non-commanded, customary), then how can it be said that the Levites paid a holy, systematic, non-spoils, commanded tithe through Abraham’s one-time act to a priest of a completely different priesthood?
That Croteau was aware of this argument is clear: he cites books that employ Hebrews 7:9 for precisely this purpose, yet remarkably—in over 530 pages (Kindle version)—he makes no effort to address or deconstruct the problem. Furthermore, on page 186, when Croteau does reference Hebrews 7:9, he affirms that the text “proves the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood.” But this only begs the question: How is the superiority proved if Abraham’s tithe is of a completely different nature from the Levites’ tithe? How can the Levites symbolically prove anything by paying tithe “as Babylonian custom” through Abraham?
To underscore the point, Croteau notes that Miller (1873), among others, helped lay the “foundations for the tithe movement,” yet Miller himself repeatedly used this very argument from Hebrews 7:9. Croteau would have been well aware of this line of reasoning—yet he again made no effort to engage or refute it.
Problem #9 – Hebrews 7:8
Dr. Croteau himself admits that in Hebrews chapter 7 “the fact that Melchizedek received a tithe from Abraham is the central argument for Melchizedek’s superiority” (p. 187). This immediately raises the question: How is Christ superior if He does not now receive tithes? And if Christ is of the exact same tithe-receiving order as Melchizedek, why would Christ not receive them today?
Croteau attempts to address the typological argument by claiming it is problematic because “if Abraham were a picture of Christians, his tithe was voluntary; he offered it as a thanksgiving for victory.” But as noted in previous points, there is no evidence for this claim—it is, again, pure speculation.
Furthermore, this only compounds the issue in the very same chapter. Croteau acknowledges that the “central argument” is Melchizedek’s superiority, yet many authors have repeatedly pointed out: How can Melchizedek’s superiority be proven if Abraham’s payment was merely a voluntary gift? If Abraham was only giving a thankful offering, it would demonstrate Abraham’s generosity, not Melchizedek’s superiority.
To quote Miller (1873): “Had it been a free gift from Abram, it would have proved his greatness above Melchizedek’s, for the giver is greater than the receiver. But when anything is paid as a tribute, it proves the receiver to be greater than the payer. Therefore, unless Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek as a tribute due to him, the Apostle’s argument is not only inconclusive, but it proves the contrary of what he affirmed.”
Dr. Croteau, having read hundreds of years of tithing literature, would have encountered this argument repeatedly. Yet in his several-hundred-page dissertation (and resulting 2010 book), he appears to have completely ignored it. Once again, he claims to refute and deconstruct arguments for tithing while failing to engage one of the most direct and historically persistent biblical challenges to his position.
Problem #10: 1 Corinthians 9:13-14
This is one of the most common and foundational texts used to support tithing because it cites the Levitical model and appeals directly to the command of the Lord for the support of those who preach the gospel. Due to the clear textual evidence, Croteau (along with other scholars) openly admits that verse 13 “is a reference to the priests who served in the temple as prescribed in the Mosaic covenant.” Croteau objects to the pro-tithing application, however, arguing that it is inconsistent. He writes, “To be consistent, one would have to view Paul saying that, in some way, he is a soldier, a farmer, a shepherd, and an ox.”
Pro-tithing advocates have argued that Paul in verse 14 refers specifically to verse 13 as the applicable model for gospel support. Croteau however says that for consistency, all prior examples (soldier, farmer, shepherd, ox) must be included. He does concede that the passage teaches “the worker has the right to be supported by his work,” but he denies that this includes a mandatory, minimum 10% tithe. However, at least four serious problems unravel Croteau’s assertion:
1. The nature of the work: The soldier, farmer, shepherd, and ox are not performing a specific religious service, whereas those “serving in the temple” and “at the altar” are engaged in sacred, priestly ministry.
2. The nature of the payment: Payment to a soldier or farmer is never described as an act of worship offered to God, whereas the tithe is repeatedly defined as given to the Lord (e.g., Num. 18:24, 26–28).
3. The holiness of the offering: Payment to a soldier or farmer is never called “holy to the Lord,” but the Levitical tithe is explicitly designated as holy (Lev. 27:30, 32; Num. 18:32). These distinctions set the temple/altar service (v. 13) apart from the prior analogies.
4. Syntactical and structural parallelism: As Professor Gordon Fee notes, “The one thing that is certain is that all the prior examples are analogies pure and simple, from which Paul extracts a principle. Here the example is precise, and the ‘command’ a word related directly to his and their situation.” Roy Ciampa further observes that “the parallel highlights the relationship between preaching the gospel and serving in the temple or at the altar,” and “the content of the Lord’s command in v. 14 closely parallels the syntactical structures found in the previous verse.” This pattern is absent from the earlier examples (soldier, farmer, etc.).
Dr. Croteau’s final attempt to dismiss 1 Corinthians 9:13–14 is to claim that tithing was limited to the Mosaic law and that “the gospel is the fulfillment of that to which the Mosaic law pointed” (p. 194). But this only circles back to the earlier problems concerning Abraham: If tithing originated only under the Mosaic law, how can it be said that the Levites symbolically “returned tithe” through Abraham (Heb. 7:9–10)? That claim makes no sense if tithing is strictly limited only to the Levitical priesthood. Croteau’s position thus undermines the very typological argument the author of Hebrews uses. Furthermore, why would the Holy Spirit through Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 invoke the example of tithes and offerings as “even so” and “in the same manner” for the gospel if (according to Croteau) the gospel did away with this very means of support? These are opposing claims and thus cannot both be correct.
Problem #11: ‘New Paradigm’ problems.
Croteau promised that after removing tithing he would “construct a new paradigm, a post-tithing paradigm.” (p. 20) In this new paradigm he says “every believer should give” and “All Christians should give something.” (pp. 341, 357) “Giving should be compelled by love” and “grace-driven” and that Christians must “give generously” because “generous giving proves the genuineness of a Christian’s love for God.” (pp. 335, 341) But then Croteau contradicts himself by claiming giving should be “heart-based” and “determined in one’s heart” (pp. 347, 342) but then flips and says giving “should not ‘depend on our whim or personal feeling.’” (p. 345) This “new paradigm” can’t even be applied in daily life because it’s based on a contradiction: How does one not give by personal feelings if one determines giving in your own heart?
He says “Christians need to be willing to give whatever the Lord may ask” even if it’s “%100” but how exactly does anyone know what exactly the Lord is asking? He says “obedience to his leading is key” (pp. 343, 357) but again, what objective criteria determines how much the Lord is leading to give? Disobedience is a serious thing. What if the Lord is asking %63 this month and your heart tells you it’s only %37 or even %7? This is a serious dilemma.