Are Christians required to give one-tenth of their income to their local church, and only optionally give over-and-beyond that one-tenth to other Christian ministries?
The Old Testament teaches that the people of God were required to tithe in order to support the mission of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Some Christians today believe that this tithing requirement is still in force today, but that instead of supporting the Temple, that the tithe should go to support the local church. Any additional offerings you give may go to the local church, or any other Christian ministry.
Does the practice of tithing belong to the Old Covenant, or is it relevant to the New Covenant as well? If so, what does “tithing” mean for Christians today?
There appears to be a lot of confusion about tithing, and giving in general, in many corners of the Christian community. So, it is worth focusing on this issue in some detail, by digging into the teaching of the Scriptures. Right out of the gate, there are two basic ideas that need to be addressed:
First, there is no explicit passage in the New Testament which requires the Christian to give 10 percent of their income to the local church. Christians are called to give generously, but there is no verse in the New Testament which prescribes a percentage to be given, to whom it should be given, and what might be considered “income”.1
Secondly, statistics show that the average church goer typically only gives about 2.5% of their income. In fact, some data indicates that giving among Americans has decreased over the last twenty years, from 2/3rds of Americans giving years ago, to the current level of only 50% of Americans giving. One recent statistic suggests that only 5% of church attenders “tithe,” or give 10 percent of their income to Christian charity. This is a sad situation, but not altogether unsurprising.
This same survey also shows that among those who do “tithe,” about 77% give more than 10% of their income. In other words, most Christians who do value the importance of giving give more than what is typically expected of them. What does this all mean?
It would appear that on the one hand, many Christians feel a certain sense of guilt about what they think they should be giving, as opposed to what they actually give. Christianity is supposed to be about grace, but sadly, many believers find that the message is more about guilt instead. On the other hand, other Christians come up with reasons to justify their low rate of giving in ways which miss the proper motivation why New Testament believers are called to give in the first place.
The topic of tithing can become emotionally heated, as some will assert on one side that churches must be greedy for money when teaching about tithing, or on the other side that the failure to give 10% to a local church is motivated by stinginess or lack of charity. Instead of guessing the motives of others, what is needed is an examination of Scripture. Clearing some of the ground biblically will help to eliminate a lot of the confusion, and bring the temperature of the debate down.
What does it mean to “tithe?” What is the difference between “tithes” and “offerings?”
A Look at Four Perspectives on Tithing
I recently read a multi-perspectives theological book, Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, part of a series which explores controversial theological topics, giving the reader the opportunity to search the Scriptures to find out the truth for themselves. Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund present the view which says the Old Testament tithe is binding upon Christians today. David A. Croteau, the editor of the volume, presents the post-tithing view. Reggie Kidd offers a “Tithing in the New Covenant” perspective. Finally, Gary North explains what he calls the “Covenantal Tithe” view. Each participant offers a response to each other’s perspective.
A lot of different, well-respected Bible teachers come to conflicting conclusions about tithing. For example, do I tithe based on my gross income or my take-home income? What if I am carrying a load of financial debt? How does one implement the tithe in that situation? At a more fundamental level, is the concept of tithing something which belongs exclusively to the Old Covenant, or is there something about tithing that can be drawn forward into the New Covenant, as spelled out in the New Testament? If so, what does that actually look like? In so many ways, the specific place a person lands on tithing should probably best be thought of as a matter of conscience, recognizing that good Christians can and do arrive at different specific positions on the subject. Nevertheless, in reading Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, there are some important observations in Scripture that need to be considered in order to arrive at a biblically faithful answer.
Because of the controversy, this series of blog posts is divided into two parts. This first part looks at what Jesus in the New Testament had to say about tithing, some basic Old Testament teaching from the Law of Moses about the tithe, and an examination of Malachi 3, perhaps the most often cited passage regarding tithing. The second part looks at the argument that tithing preceded the Law of Moses, as well as what the Apostle Paul in the New Testament says about giving, and the proper motivation for that giving in the first place. In order to preserve the flow and readability of these blog posts, I will relegate most of my specific comments about Perspective on Tithing: 4 Views to the footnotes below. What then is the “tithe” in the Bible all about?
What Does “Tithe” Actually Mean?
The word “tithe” simply means “a tenth.” The word “tithe” only shows up four times in the New Testament. Two of those occurrences happen in parallel passages in the Gospels, Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, where Jesus is addressing hypocrisy among the Pharisees. The third place in the Gospels is Luke 18:12, where Jesus is teaching in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. The fourth occurrence is in Hebrews 7:5.
Advocates of strict tithing today say that because of the three references in the Gospels, Jesus is approving of the Old Testament practice of tithing, therefore the practice of tithing is still applicable for New Testament Christians. Consider one of the most forceful passages, such as Matthew 23:23:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
This strict interpretation argues that the Pharisees should neglect neither the weightier matters of the law, nor tithing. Jesus expects nothing less than this for his followers today. Just because justice, mercy and faithfulness carry more weight does not mean that Christian should neglect the tithe. Therefore, this reasoning suggests that the Old Covenant principle of tithing is carried forward into the New Covenant, and is therefore binding on today’s Christian.
However, a more careful look at the context for Jesus’ statements needs to be considered. Jesus is Jewish, and he is speaking to fellow Jews. While this sounds rather obvious, the implications are not always so obvious. Jesus’ Jewish audience would be most interested in what it meant to follow Torah, which would include Jesus’ teaching on tithing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Gospels which clearly indicates that Jesus, during his earthly ministry, ever went against the prescriptions of the Old Covenant. While Jesus certainly interpreted the Law of Moses differently from his primary antagonists, the Pharisees, he was never against the Law itself, in principle.
As Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, he did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it. Theologians continue to debate the meaning of Matthew 5:17. Nevertheless, the key to understanding Jesus’ teaching on tithing, contextually, is that this was given prior to his finished work on the cross. At this point in the New Testament story, as we read in the Gospels, an Old Covenant context is assumed. It is not until after Jesus’ work on the cross is completed that the situation changes, particularly when it comes to the outreach to the Gentiles.2
True, Jesus did have interactions with Gentiles along the way during his earthly ministry. Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5–13). Jesus intervened in the life of a Canaanite woman by healing her daughter (Matthew 15:21–28). But mostly Jesus’ day to day focus was on his fellow Jews. The full impact of his intentions towards the Gentiles would not be realized until after his resurrection and ascension.
Most notably, Paul was selected by the Risen Jesus to be his primary ambassador to the Gentiles, as God’s progressive revelation unfolds in the New Testament. It is mostly through the writings of Paul where we see the full extent of God’s heart to include the Gentiles, where the bar for entry among the people of God was lowered for the Gentiles. Circumcision was no longer a requirement for the Gentile, nor was strict adherence to the kosher food regulations, as observed by the Jews. There was certainly no requirement for Gentile Christians to tithe to the Temple in Jerusalem. In fact, Paul never mentions tithing once anywhere in his letters. This is progressive revelation at work in the New Testament story. 3
However, the problem with how tithing should be observed today is not simply a New Testament issue. There are difficulties in comprehending the very definition of tithing, and how it could even be translated into a New Covenant context. For even though the word “tithe” itself simply means “a tenth,” the full expression of tithing in the Old Testament is more complicated.
Tithing in Its Old Testament Context
When people often think about the concept of “tithing” in the Old Testament, the concept of giving a tenth in order to support the livelihood of the Levitical priests comes to mind. The Levites did not receive an inheritance of the land, so they were dependent on their Israelite brothers and sisters to support them, according to Numbers 18:21 and Leviticus 27:30–33. Here is Leviticus 27:30-33:
“Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord’s; it is holy to the Lord. If a man wishes to redeem some of his tithe, he shall add a fifth to it. And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman’s staff, shall be holy to the Lord. One shall not differentiate between good or bad, neither shall he make a substitute for it; and if he does substitute for it, then both it and the substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.”
Several problems will be apparent with a careful study, if one tries to import this into a New Covenant context, but only two need to be mentioned. First, the tithe is based on agricultural goods, such as food products that were grown or the maintenance of livestock. There is no tithe specified here for other forms of income. There were other occupations in ancient Israel aside from farming and animal husbandry, such as the makers of pottery, carpenters, stonecutters, and masons (1 Chronicles 22:15). There is nothing in the Old Testament which indicates that these other workers were required to pay a tithe based on these other sources of income.
Jesus himself acknowledges that the tithe the Pharisees paid was for mint and dill, but nothing about any pottery any Pharisee made. How then can one define the basis of what “income” is for the New Testament Christian, if one is supposed to give 10% of one’s income?
A second problem confronts us with the “every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman’s staff.” Some associate the very beginning of the tithe principle with the controversy over Cain and Abel’s sacrifices in Genesis 4:3-7. Abel’s sacrifice was regarded as acceptable because he gave off the “firstborn” of his flock. But in Leviticus 27:30-33, what is tithed is not the first animal, but rather, the tenth animal.
In other words, if someone had ten animals, the tenth would be given to fulfill the tithe requirement. But if he had nineteen animals, he was only obligated to give one animal. If he only had nine animals, he was not obligated to give any animal in order to fulfill the tithe requirement.
The situation gets even more complicated when you consider that the Israelites were required to give two additional tithes, on top of the Levitical tithe to support the priesthood from one’s agricultural or animal husbandry resources. Deuteronomy 14:22–27 describes a second tithe, the so-called Festival Tithe. During the feast days, the Israelite would bring their tithe for the purpose of the celebration, which is different from supporting the livelihood of the Levites. It was kind of like saving up for a national potluck supper at the festivals, but it was shared among the people as a whole, not the Levites in particular.
The third tithe, the so-called Charity Tithe, is described in Deuteronomy 14:28–29. This was different from the previous two tithes in that it was given once every three years, to support the Levite, foreigner, orphan, or widow, who were in need. This was like Social Security and “Food Stamps” all rolled into one.
If you add all of this up, the Old Testament Israelite was required to give way more than just 10% of their income, in order to meet the tithing requirements. Scholars debate the exact percentage, but they think it to be around 23% averaged over multiple years. To my knowledge, I have never known a bible teacher preach that Christians should give 23% of their annualized income to support the local church.
Evidence from texts closer to the time of Jesus, like Tobit 1:6-8 and Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.22), indicate that this three-fold tithing arrangement was still practiced during the time of Jesus. So, when proponents of the tithe for Christians make their case, it would appear that some undefined or otherwise arbitrary assumption is made that the tithe under the New Covenant corresponds solely to the Levitical tithe and not the Festival or Charity tithes.
Again, we have the difficult problem of defining what “tithe” even means, what “income” even means, and where exactly this tithe, or parts of the tithe, should be paid, when it comes to applying the “tithe” in a New Covenant context. Thought about it this way, then the age old debate as to whether one should give based on their net or gross pay becomes even more complicated!4
Perspectives on Tithing: Four Views, edited by David A. Croteau, features four essays by Ken Hemphill & Bobby Eklund, David Croteau, Reggie Kidd, and Gary North, covering different views on tithing and interacting with many of the most relevant texts in Scripture.
Malachi on Tithes and Offerings…. And Robbing From God
The most often cited passage in support of tithing being extended into the New Covenant is Malachi 3:8-12. Here it is in the ESV:
8 Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions (NIV: offerings). 9 You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. 10 Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. 11 I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts. 12 Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the Lord of hosts.
The lesson typically taught from this passage is that Christians today should give one-tenth of their income, their “tithe,” to their local church, and that anything else given to the work of the church above and beyond that, their “contributions” (ESV) or “offerings” (NIV), can be given anywhere, either to the local church, parachurch ministries, or missionaries someone supports. This interpretation carries a lot of freight which needs careful inspection.
One disputed issue is the definition of the “storehouse.” This is thought to be the place where God designates where that which is owed to God should be taken, something which is of God’s own choosing, and not the choice of the one giving what is given. But what is this “storehouse”? Some suggest that this is the temple, or prior to the building of the temple in Jerusalem, the tabernacle that moved along with the movement of the Israelites in the wilderness.5
There are several difficulties with this view. First, other scholars contend that the “storehouse” was something built alongside the temple in Jerusalem, but not the temple itself, as described as the “chambers” in 2 Chronicles 31:11, or the “treasuries” area built by Solomon in 1 Kings 7:51. In the 2 Chronicles 31:5-11 passage, the “chambers” were the designation storage place for the leftovers, built in the time of Hezekiah, centuries after Moses. For if the “storehouse” is not the “temple” itself, it is difficult to assign a New Testament association of “storehouse” with “the local church.”6
Secondly, in Exodus 20:24 there is no one designated worship place, but rather multiple places where offerings could be given. Exodus is describing the situation where there were various locations where the Israelites worshipped, as when the tabernacle was mobile in the Sinai wilderness, and afterwards, when the people settled in the land. Once settled in the Promised Land, different worship centers were set up, such as at Shiloh, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah, and Dan. This was all before Solomon built the one central authorized place for temple worship, as noted in passages like Deuteronomy 12:5-6, 16:2, 5-7.7
Third, the idea that the tithe is required, whereas the “offerings,” or “contributions” (ESV) above and beyond the tithe, are optional is actually contradicted by Malachi 3:8. Malachi records that the “robbing” of God is felt not simply by the withholding of “tithes,” but rather by the withholding of the “offerings” or “contributions” as well. Perhaps the idea that the tithes are required and the offerings are optional derive from the fact that Malachi 3:10 only mentions the “tithe” and not the offerings being brought into the storehouse. But Malachi 3:8’s specific mention of tithes and contributions/offerings establishes the context for the whole of what Malachi is saying about the subject. Both the tithes and the offerings are required under the Old Covenant.8
A crucial question regarding how Malachi 3 is related to the New Testament is what takes the place of the storehouse/temple in the New Testament. Proponents of strict tithing under the New Covenant typically argue that the local church takes the place of the storehouse/temple, in terms to whom the tithe is given. But what is the basis for this?
The New Testament Temple is Not A Building, Nor a Place of Worship. Instead It is the Body of Believers Universal
The clearest New Testament designation of what constitutes the “temple” under the New Covenant is found in the letters of Paul. In 1 Corinthians 3:16, Paul teaches: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” Note that the “you” in this verse is plural and not singular. Paul repeats the same idea in 2 Corinthians 6:14- 7:1, that “we are the temple of the living God.”
So, who is the “you” of 1 Corinthians and the “we” of 2 Corinthians? To argue that the referent here is simply the local church in Corinth is to miss the point of Paul’s teaching. Paul is not saying that the local church in Corinth is the temple, as though either the local church in Ephesus or Jerusalem is not, would be an absurd conclusion. Paul’s point is to say that wherever believers gather, whether in Corinth, Ephesus, or Jerusalem, they are all a part of the one universal church, where each local community has a local expression of that larger body. In other words, the temple where God dwells in the New Testament is the church universal, believers everywhere, not in a particular locality, though every believer is considered to be a part of a local expression of that universal church. Ephesians 2:19-22 repeats the same theme of identifying the temple as the body of Christian believers.9
The meeting place of the local congregation, or local church, is not the temple, according to Paul. For Paul, the temple is not a building. Rather, the temple is the people of God who gather at that meeting place. Furthermore, it is not just at one particular meeting place. Rather, it is wherever the people gather, universally.
So, while the local church is certainly part of the church universal, the local church is simply one aspect of the New Covenant temple, as the church is made up of countless missionaries, parachurch ministries, and other persons serving God, all part of the one church universal, the very temple of God for Paul. Therefore, even if one accepts that the tithe is still binding on the New Covenant believer, it does not fit with Paul’s theology that this New Covenant temple is restricted to “the local church,” and that local church alone.10
This is not the end of the discussion. Those who argue that the tithe specifically is still an on-going requirement for Christians today advance a very thoughtful argument which grounds the tithe as something which precedes the Law of Moses. So, based on this reasoning, the tithe should not be treated as something in the same category as the Jewish kosher food laws. Then there is the all important question of: if not the tithe, then what does the New Testament say about giving, and does the tithe tell us anything about how Christians today should go about graciously giving towards the ministry of building God’s Kingdom? These are the topics to be addressed in the next and final blog post in this series on tithing.
Notes:
1. Richard Hess, Leviticus (The Expositor’s Commentary), p. 826. Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIVAC, p. 294, 313. In Blomberg’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:2 , where Paul says that a believer should give “as he may prosper,” Blomberg notes here that Paul is recognizing that some are not able to give, due to financial constraints. Therefore, those who have greater means are expected to give more than those who are poor. But Blomberg acknowledges that the New Testament requires no specific percentage for giving from Christians. ↩
2. Hemphill and Eklund make the controversial claim that “To place tithing into a similar category with dietary regulations and animal sacrifices, which were clearly superseded through the life and teaching of Jesus, is to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus” (Hemphill and Eklund in Perspectives on Tithing, 4 Views, editor David Croteau, p. 40). This claim makes assumptions which are difficult to sustain. While it is true that Jesus never actually performs a sacrifice when he visits the temple, there is no indication whatsoever that Jesus condemned or superseded the animal sacrificial system of the temple in his pre-crucifixion ministry. In fact, he encouraged his followers to offer sacrifices in the temple (Matthew 5:23-24). As to the dietary regulations being superseded by Jesus prior to the crucifixion, there is not a single instance in the Gospels where Jesus violates kosher eating practices. Many scholars now argue that Mark 7, as translated in many contemporary English translations, is faulty when it comes to saying that Jesus superseded the kosher food laws. Even if it could be argued that Jesus taught that the kosher food laws were to be abrogated, most modern translations (CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) place this conclusion in a parenthetical bracket in Mark 7:19, thereby indicating that this conclusion was arrived at long after the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Instead, one must look to the progressive revelation that came to Paul, and perhaps Peter, long after the ascension, to establish the abrogation of the kosher food regulations for Gentiles. The topic of progressive revelation within the New Testament, and other aspects related to the kosher food laws, is also explored in more detail in the Veracity blog post, “Did Jesus Keep Kosher?“↩
3. In Perspectives on Tithing, 4 Views, hereafter cited as “Croteau,” the editor of the volume, contributors Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund agree that Paul did not specifically mention “tithing”, but they also argue that Paul never mentioned “hell” in his letters. Does this suggest that “hell is not a reality?” (Hemphill and Eklund in Croteau, p. 44). While it is true that Paul never uses the word “hell” in his letters, he does reference the “eternal destruction” of those who reject the Gospel, in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9. So unless Hemphill and Eklund reject the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, which I sincerely doubt, there is no reason to conclude that Paul never addresses the topic of hell in his writings. Paul gets at the logic behind “hell” without explicitly mentioning the word. Likewise, Paul writes about the importance of sacrificial, generous giving in his letters, by appealing to the principle behind tithing, without giving an explicit endorsement of this particular Old Testament practice. See also this article by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason.↩
4. KÖSTENBERGER and CROTEAU cite Tobit and Josephus. Much of the material gathered in this blog post is summarized from a paper: “Will a Man Rob God?” (Malachi 3:8): A Study of Tithing in the Old and New Testaments, by ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER AND DAVID A. CROTEAU SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. But the same material can be gathered throughout Croteau, Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views . ↩
5. Hemphill and Eklund argue that “The storehouse clearly refers to God’s house (Deut 12:5–7; 26:2), the place of worship for His children, and for present-day believers that would be the meeting place of a local congregation. There is no provision made for another place or storehouse in which tithes would be deposited“. Croteau, p.23-24.↩
6. See the argument presented with evidence by David Croteau in Croteau, p. 48. See the above footnote for Hemphill and Eklund’s position, which equates the local church with the “meeting place of a local congregation.” Contra Hemphill and Eklund, to argue for an analogy between the “storehouse” of Malachi with “the local church” of the New Testament is problematic. Hemphill and Eklund’s discounts Croteau’s evidence, using a counterargument which suggests: “As to the unsupported position that “storehouse” in Mal 3:10 refers specifically (and only) to a special room in the temple designated to hold tithes and offerings, the principle is the same. The gifts (tithes and offerings) belong to God; they are used and administered by His representatives (in this instance, those charged with disbursing funds) to carry out the work of the kingdom. While the ‘storehouse’ designation certainly may be hermeneutically applied as ‘a place of gathering,’ we must insist that the focus is on the tithe given and on the intended recipient, God, and not the place of storage or gathering” (Croteau, p. 87). It is not clear as to how Hemphill and Eklund can effectively identify the “tithes” as being associated with “the local church” (or “local congregation”), and the “offerings” being about a category less restrictive, based on this counterargument. If the intended recipient of the tithe is ultimately God, how important is it to really insist that the only legitimate immediate recipient is “the local church,” when there are so many other varieties of Christian ministries universally that are also dedicated to serving God? It is as though Hemphill and Eklund are undercutting their own argument made in their essay in Perspectives on Tithing, by insisting that the focus of the tithe is the “intended recipient, God,” and not to a specific place where God is at work in the world. In his response to Croteau’s argument, Gary North says that Croteau’s analysis about the storehouse is weak: “This is the logical equivalent of arguing that the church is not the recipient of the tithes of its members, because the money is kept in a bank” (Croteau, p. 95). Using that analogy, this would suggest that Hemphill and Eklund’s argument that the storehouse identifies the meeting place of the local church as the modern day equivalent is even more problematic. Interestingly, North rests his case in support of the tithe on an appeal to Hebrews 7, and not to the arguments presented by Hemphill and Eklund. ↩
7. See notes about the editorial development of the Torah authorized by Moses in a previous Veracity blog post. Randy Alcorn cites a source from Adam Couturier to suggest that having multiple places of worship, and therefore multiple places where offerings could be brought, was an acceptable practice prior to the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and such local worship centers were not condemned. It was only after corruption became associated with these alternative, local worship centers that these “high places” were condemned.↩
8. “‘Offerings’ do not refer to tipping God, and they were not optional.” See argument by David Croteau, in Croteau, p. 69-70. The aspect of Malachi as to the promised reward of tithing is an important issue to address, but not relevant here. For if God requires tithes and offerings, it does not matter what type of reward is involved. The question of putting God “to the test” in Malachi 3 has no bearing on whether or not the practice of Old Covenant tithing should be carried forward into the New Covenant. Christians should act out of obedience, and not simply out of some motivation of a promised reward. Also, see “Argument from Malachi 3”, by David Croteau.↩
9. See essay by Joshua M. Greever, “We are the Temple of the Living God” (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1): The New Covenant as the Fulfillment of God’s Promise of Presence, for a more detailed look the universality of Paul’s connecting the Old Testament language of temple with the language of the church in a New Covenant context.↩
10. To make the claim that 10% of a Christian’s income should go to “the local church,” on the basis of Malachi 3, is to invite the absurd conclusion that a believer who gives part of their 10% to missionaries or parachurch ministries, that do not come under the direct supervision of the local church, is somehow “robbing from God.” Some might argue that giving to the local church is better in that a typical church giver generally has very little control over how the funds are being spent. However, this is true, in general, no matter what Christian entity one gives, too. If you give to a parachurch ministry, for example, unless you specify where the money is spent, you still generally do not control how the funds are being spent. ↩
Veracity 
What do you think?