Tag Archives: leviticus

July 3, 2025

When “The Chosen” Goes Over the Top: Jesus and the Forces of Death, by Matthew Thiessen. A Review.

So, when we say that Jesus was Jewish, just how Jewish was he?

For most Christians, realizing that Jesus was Jewish is a no-brainer. But the above question is actually not as easy to answer than one would think. Like many other Christians, I have greatly enjoyed the popular film series, The Chosen. Nevertheless, for fans of The Chosen, the better answer to the question might cause you to rethink how accurately the film portrays the Jewishness of Jesus and his world.

We often bring assumptions to the table about who Jesus was that often reflects our own cultural understanding of who we think Jesus should be. However, when reading Matthew Thiessen’s most excellent Jesus and the Forces of Death, I learned just how short-sighted I was in appreciating Jesus as a first century Jew. Thiessen, the author of his also excellent The Jewish Paul, reviewed here also on Veracity, looked at the Jewishness of Paul. Theissen does the same thing with the Jesus of the Gospels, in Jesus and the Forces of Death.

A New Testament scholar at McMaster University, Matthew Thiessen focuses on how Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, understood the teachings in the Book of Leviticus, with respect to ritual impurity. Much like Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ and Michael Heiser’s Notes on Leviticus: from the Naked Bible Podcast, reviewed as well here on Veracity (Boyarin, Heiser), respectively, Jesus and the Forces of Death demonstrates convincingly that Jesus was thoroughly a first century Jew, who took the ancient Israelite regulations regarding ritual impurity seriously, contrary to what many scholars and lay persons believe about Jesus.

The eye opening thesis of Thiessen’s book is that he writes about skin disease, bodily discharges, nocturnal emissions, and corpses in a way you have never thought about before, but that makes a whole lot of sense, by diving deep into topics one would normally like to avoid in casual conversation. Simply put, ritual impurity for the first century Jew was about the forces of death. When Jesus as the Messiah came along, his mission had a lot to do with addressing ritual impurity, and combating those forces which lead to death.

Reading Jesus and the Forces of the Death has helped me to think about what is going on in Dallas Jenkins’ popular film series, The Chosen. For the most part, Jenkins’ does a fairly good job laying out the concept of Jewish ritual impurity, and its significance for the story of the Gospels. Nevertheless, even though The Chosen gets many things right about ritual impurity in Jesus’ day, the film series does drop the ball by going a bit over the top in a few other scenes, as will be explained below.¹

Jesus knew the power had gone out from him, when the woman with the 12-year issue of blood touched the fringe of his garment, one of the most moving moments in Dallas Jenkins’ film series, The Chosen.

Was Jesus “Compassionate” Towards the Leper, or Was He “Angry” With Him?

Here is one area where the concept of Jewish ritual impurity can explain a tricky part of the Bible: I first learned almost twenty years ago from a Bart Ehrman interview, covering his New York Times best selling book, Misquoting Jesus, that there is a textual variant in Mark 1:41, where Jesus says that he was either “angry” or “moved with pity” when he encountered a man, a leper, who asked if Jesus would desire to make him clean.

Translations differ on which variant to use. Both the ESV and NRSVue go with “moved with pity,” while the CSB has “moved with compassion.” Here is how the ESV puts it:

Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

Other translations go with some word close to “angry,” such as “indignant” with the NET and NIV translations. The CEB goes with “incensed“:

Incensed, Jesus reached out his hand, touched him, and said, “I do want to. Be clean.”

So, which is it? Was Jesus moved by pity and compassion, or was Jesus incensed and angry? Ehrman, perhaps the world’s best known critic of conservative evangelical faith, simply observes that there is a serious discrepancy in how we should read this text. Does this indicate some kind of error in the Bible, as Ehrman insinuates? Yet Ehrman offers no reasoning as to why such variants might exist.

When I first learned about this, I mentally filed it away, curious to know what was going on here. Was Bart Ehrman right? Does this indicate an error in the Bible?

My first instinct has been to say that the ESV got this right, that Jesus was moved by compassion to heal this man. But why do other translations talk about Jesus being angry? Matthew Thiessen’s analysis solves the riddle as to why some early New Testament manuscripts have Jesus getting “angry” instead of “moved with pity” in Mark 1:41. It all goes back to how Christians have often misunderstood ritual impurity, something which Ehrman never explains in Misquoting Jesus.

Many have suggested that Jesus rejected the ancient Jewish ritual impurity system, during his earthly ministry, prior to his death and resurrection. The thought suggests that the whole system, with its supposedly rigid quarantine rules for those with leprosy, was something to which Jesus was completely opposed. Like the kosher food laws, circumcision, etc., Jesus was opposed to such superstitious things and he wanted to do away with them. Perhaps this might explain the textual variant in Mark 1:41 explaining why Jesus was “angry,” right? He was angry that his fellow Jews were making such a big deal about ritual impurity.

However, Thiessen demonstrates that this reasoning is wrong. Instead, Jesus wanted to affirm the ritual impurity system, while simultaneously addressing the conditions which lead to ritual impurity in the first place. As Thiessen shows, ritual impurity is regarded by Jesus as a real condition, but that being in a state of ritual impurity does not indicate that a person is in “sin” when someone is in that state of ritual impurity. For Jesus, as for any other first century Jew, ritual impurity was a real thing. But ritual impurity is not the same thing as moral impurity, in which the latter is “sin,” in classic Christian theology.²

Furthermore, our English translations have confused readers by suggesting that the condition of “leprosy” is primarily a medical condition, whereas what is really going on is a case of ritual impurity. We often think that to be a “leper” is to have the condition of Hansen’s disease, which is a serious medical condition, but such an association is misleading. For example, Leviticus 13 describes the Greek word “lepra” as having to do with having white, flaky skin. However, with Hansen’s disease, commonly called “leprosy,” the lesions are rarely if ever white. In fact, what we commonly think of as “leprosy,” as in Hansen’s disease, was unknown during the time of Leviticus, and did not show up in the Middle East for hundreds of years later (Thiessen, chapter 3, pp. 46-47).

In Jesus’ day, what we think of today as “leprosy” was actually called in Greek, “elephantiasis.” It was not until the late 8th or early 9th century when John of Damascus mistakenly identified “elephantiasis” with the “lepra” in Greek translations of Leviticus. John of Damascus’ error has been with us ever since (Thiessen, chapter 3, pp. 46-47).

Instead, to be a “leper” is to have “lepra,” a generic skin condition which is indeed physical but that represents being in a state of ritual impurity; that is, being “unclean,” and therefore unfit to enter into sacred space. To be in an “unclean” state would prevent the Jewish worshipper from going into the Jerusalem Temple to make an offering before the Lord. Thiessen argues that the “lepra” skin disease is instead a relatively minor medical condition, something more like scurvy, eczema, or psoriasis (Theissen, p. 48).

Nevertheless, someone in a state of ritual impurity due to lepra was expected to maintain some distance from others, as ritual impurity was thought to be contagious. Those with lepra were expected to stay outside of the community, at least for a period of time, though Jews in the Second Temple period debated with one another on the exact period of time this should be. The concern was that someone with lepra might unwittingly contaminate something holy, like sacred food, so different measures were take to prevent that. However, permanent cases of quarantine due to lepra were rare (Thiessen, pp. 48 ff).

Remember all of this the next time you go back and watch Season One of The Chosen, when Jesus heals the leper, from Matthew 8:1-4. As in Mark 1, the leper comes to Jesus in an “unclean” or ritually impure state. While there is some legitimate concern about the contagion of ritual impurity, the scene from the film series needlessly takes the conflict up several notches. One of Jesus’ disciples covers his mouth, while another even pulls out a knife and threatens the leper not to come any closer. You would think that the leper was infected with something like ebola.

The healing performed by Jesus is quite moving, and gives me goosebumps. But if Matthew Theissen was watching the scene with you, he would probably shake his head in embarrassment over the excessive freakout by Jesus’ disciples when the man first comes near to them. You would not want to trivialize the situation, but would you ever react this fanatically if someone approached you having a really bad case of dandruff?

Alas, Mark’s version of the story, if indeed this is identical to the episode in Matthew 8, has a more nuanced message behind it. The issue in Mark 1:41 is not about Jesus pronouncing judgment against the ritual impurity system. In fact, Jesus’ position is actually the opposite. He wants to affirm the integrity of the Jewish law. Afterall, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). This is why Jesus “sternly” (ESV) in Mark 1:43 warns the man with lepra, after Jesus heals him: “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them” (Mark 1:44).

However, the man who was healed disobeyed Jesus and spread the news about his healing. This prevented Jesus from openly entering any town, forcing Jesus to stay out in desolate places, where people came to him (Mark 1:45). Mark wants to portray Jesus as being compliant to the ancient Jewish ritual impurity system taught in Leviticus, which is why he urged the man with lepra to go to the priest and fulfill the legal requirements commanded by Moses.

Thiessen shows that what was at issue was the man’s questioning of Jesus’ desire to heal him. The man had confidence that Jesus could heal him, but he questioned Jesus’ desire: Would Jesus really want to heal him?

This is what stirred up Jesus’ indignation. Of course Jesus wanted to heal him! In a sense, while the “angry” reference is probably more likely, both readings are correct, in that Jesus was upset with the man questioning Jesus’ desire to heal, while also having compassion on those who are burdened by being in extended states of ritual impurity. Jesus wants people to follow through with the procedures described in the Law of Moses, while at the same time, dealing with that which leads people into states of ritual impurity to begin with. In this way, Jesus’ mission is to combat against the forces which lead to death.

Jesus wanted the healed man to fulfill the ritual obligation of going to the priest, to verify that the healed man was actually now healed, to show the religious authorities that Jesus himself had the power to address the root cause of how people ended up in states of being unclean. “Jesus destroys the impurity-creating condition, allowing the man to now observe the regulations of Leviticus 14 in removing the remaining ritual impurity” (Thiessen, chapter 3, p. 56). In other words, Jesus was not opposed to the ancient Jewish system which dealt with the existence of ritual impurity, based on its myriad of regulations and procedures to treat it. But he was opposed to ritual impurity itself. Instead of wanting to get rid of the Jewish ritual impurity system, which was right and good in Jesus’ view, he wanted to get rid of the need for the system by destroying the source of ritual impurity, the forces which lead to death in the first place.

If that last statement does not fire up your brain cells, then you need to go back and read that story told in Mark 1:40-45, preferably in multiple translations, and let it sink in. Each chapter in the main body of Thiessen’s book gives examples of where Jesus wants to destroy the source of ritual impurities, without suggesting that Jesus wanted to abolish the Jewish ritual impurity system as Jesus and his fellow Jews sought to practice.

Rethinking A Tendency Towards Anti-Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible

Thiessen wants to overturn an idea that has made its way into Christian thought, both at the scholarly and lay level. Too often, Jesus has been portrayed in positive ways at odds with the supposedly negative ways of his fellow Jews in Jesus’ day. For example, many believe that the Jews in Jesus’ day treated women as completely second-class citizens, whereas Jesus was a fully enlightened, egalitarian thinking person who lifted women up, thereby shaming traditional Jewish misogyny. For another example, Jesus was all about caring, compassion, and grace, whereas the Jews were all legalistic, works-righteousness oriented, without any thought or appreciation of God’s grace. For yet another example, Jesus was all about sensibility and freedom from silly taboos, whereas the Jews were superstitious, and obsessed with stupid rules about cleanliness versus uncleanliness. As Jewish bible scholar Amy-Jill Levine has put it, too often we have tried to make Jesus look good by making Jews look bad.

The ritual purity system itself, far from being silly and overly burdensome, was actually God’s compassionate system for enabling ancient Israelties to deal with their conditions of ritual impurity. Being in a state of ritual impurity, such as when one comes in contact with a dead corpse, was not sinful. The only time someone in a state of ritual impurity would cross the line over to becoming sinful was when someone in that state of untreated ritual impurity tried to enter into God’s sacred space, in the tabernacle/temple. The ritual impurity system described most fully in the book of Leviticus was designed as a compassionate way for a Yahweh worshipper to deal with their impurity, thereby enabling them to enter into sacred space, and have communion with a holy God.

The most important and fundamental chapter of Jesus and the Forces of Death, is chapter one, “Mapping Jesus’ World,” something that the reader should absolutely not skip. Leviticus 10:10 teaches that there is a matrix in Jewish thought that defines the ancient Jewish impurity system.

You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean (ESV).

Theissen describes this as two binaries: the first binary is the “holy” versus that which is “profane.” That which is holy is God’s sacred space. It is set apart by God, whether it be a particular place or places, or a person, or persons. That which is not holy is profane. The ESV translates the word profane as “common,” which gives the word a different angle, in that we often assume that what is profane is either dirty, impure, or sinful. But this is misleading. The word “common,” in contrast to that which is holy, is an acceptable word to use, which avoids any negative connotation. All things are either holy or profane, but most of the world is profane. Thiessen’s example is the Sabbath, whereby six days are profane (or common) and the seventh day is holy. In the Jewish mindset, there is nothing bad about Sunday through Friday. But Saturday is different, as it is holy. To be “holy” is to be set apart. To be “holy” is not about being better than that which is profane, or morally superior than that which is profane or common.

The second binary is that which is pure versus that which is impure. One could also translate this as that which is clean versus that which is unclean. But pure and holy are not synonyms, and neither are impure and profane synonyms. Furthermore, while being pure is the preferred category, to be impure (or unclean) could be either a result of sin, as moral impurity, or it could simply be something that is part of the normal course of everyday life, as in ritual impurity. In other words, not all impurity is a result of sin, whereas some impurity is connected to sin.

Through this matrix found in Leviticus, an Israelite person could be in either one of four states:

Holy and Pure
Holy and Impure
Profane and Pure
Profane and Impure

In order to enter sacred space, or that which is holy, one must be in a state of purity. Where things get dangerous, and even lethal, is when someone tries to enter that which is holy in a state of impurity. To try to enter God’s sacred holy space, while carrying some kind of impurity is to put your life at risk. The case of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 and their offer of “strange fire” was such an event which led to their deaths. Thiessen maps out this matrix based largely on the work of the Jewish biblical scholar, Jacob Milgrom.

However, it can be easy to confuse ritual impurity with moral impurity, Thiessen draws on the work of Jonathan Klawans in order to define the differences:

Ritual impurity is….

… unavoidable
… from a natural substance
… communicable
… something which can be bathed away
… not an abomination
… not sinful

Moral impurity is….

… avoidable
… from an action
… noncommunicable
… something which either can atoned for or which leads to punishment
… an abomination
… sinful

But while there is a distinction between ritual and moral impurity, the line can get blurred. If someone fails to follow the prescribed Levitical method and timing for dealing with ritual impurity, it could become sinful; that is, ritual impurity becomes moral impurity.

The Baptism of Jesus and Rituals of Purification

Have you ever considered why Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist?

While Thiessen does not come out with a definitive answer to this question, this matrix of holy vs. profane and pure vs. impure raises provocative questions which might lead to a sensible answer. For we often associate baptism with the forgiveness of sins. But if Jesus is without sin, why would he need to undergo baptism in order to remove non-existent sin?

However, as Thiessen points out in chapter 2 of his book, the rite of baptism for purification was a central part of life at the community of Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Purification was not simply about the removal of moral impurity, but it was also about the removal of ritual impurity, which is inherently not sinful, unless someone tried to bring that ritual impurity into that which is holy; that is, sacred space. Is it possible that Jesus’ baptism was not about the removal of moral impurity, or sin, but rather was about ritual impurity? Was this part of Jesus’ way of affirming the principle of the Jewish impurity ritual system?

Some scholars, such as the eminent 20th century Roman Catholic Raymond Brown, have suggested that Luke was in error when in Luke 2:22 he describes the holy family going to the temple in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ birth for “their purification,” with the “their” being a plural referent, and not singular. For Brown, this conflicts with Leviticus 12:2-4, which describes the need for purification for the mother alone, after the birth of a child.

Thiessen in his chapter 2 shows that early Christian scribes who copied Luke wrestled with this tension as well. Whereas most of our earliest manuscripts have “their,” some copyists simply deleted the word “their,” thereby leaving the text saying something like: “And when the time came for [pronoun omitted] purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.” This would avoid the theological complication which might suggest that the baby Jesus somehow had some kind of need for purification. Still other copyists only complicated the issue by inserting a masculine pronoun, as “his purification.” Does this suggest that the need for purification was for Jesus’ father, Joseph, or for Jesus himself?

Nevertheless, Thiessen makes the case that Luke did not make a mistake. The holy family did go to the temple for “their purification,” and this actually affirms the idea that Luke, along with Jesus, was approving of the validity of the Jewish impurity system. This might suggest that indeed the baby Jesus underwent purification, but that this purification was for Jesus’ ritual impurity, and not any kind of moral impurity. Secondarily, Thiessen shows that some Second Temple Jews, as one would find in the Book of Jubilees, actually understood Leviticus as saying that when a mother becomes ritually impure through the childbirth that the child might also become ritually impure as well. In such a case, both Mary and Jesus underwent ritual purification at the temple.

The point is of interest for several reasons. First, it indicates that Luke did not commit an error here, thereby affirming the integrity of the Gospel text in its inspiration and inerrancy. Second, it shows that Luke, assuming he was the Gentile author of the text, was familiar with the particularities of the Jewish ritual impurity system, something one would not necessarily expect from a Gentile convert to Christianity. Far from being a “mistake,” thus requiring some tortured harmonization to resolve the supposed discrepancy, Luke did what he did on purpose.

Jesus Deals with Ritual Impurity Regarding Bodily Fluids

Matthew Thiessen is not afraid of addressing Jesus’ interaction with people who have become ritually impure, due to natural situations involving bodily fluids. Mark 5:25-34, paralleled in other places like Luke 8:42-48, deals with an extreme case whereby one woman would repeatedly experience a discharge of blood for twelve years. Thiessen gives the reader the Old Testament background for why this woman was considered ritually impure, but he rejects the arguments of other scholars who say that Jesus’ healing of this woman was a demonstration by Jesus of his rejection of the entire Jewish ritual impurity system.

For example, Thiessen sees that Leviticus 15 in no way instructs that a woman in this hemorrhaging condition should be sequestered in strict quarantine. Instead, she is only forbidden from entering sacred space, that which is holy; that is, “the tabernacle or temple apparatus” (Thiessen, p. 72). This is a good bit different from how the popular understanding of this story is generally interpreted, among both scholars and lay persons alike.

The popular film series, The Chosen, in Season 3, features an emotionally powerful, dramatized reenactment of the episode from Jesus’ ministry. The woman with the issue of blood is essentially ostracized from society, forced to effectively live outside of populated areas. When she hears that Jesus is making his way through town, the woman takes a social risk and pursues Jesus. However, several people try to stop her, horrified that this unclean woman would appear in public like this. Yet she desperately reaches out through the crowds to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment, and through her faith she is instantly healed. I get goosebumps every time I watch this scene:

While the overall framing of the narrative is faithful to Scripture, the characterization of the Jewish ritual impurity system is woefully over-the-top to a New Testament scholar like Matthew Thiessen. Part of the problem is that the “unclean,” or ritually impure status of the woman is regarded as though it was morally sinful, which according to Leviticus is not the case. Even today, without a temple, practicing Jews mostly view themselves as existing most of the time in a state of ritual impurity. But this does not suggest an implicit moral judgment. Yes, there were concerns about the woman’s ritual impurity being contagious, but it need not suggest that the woman would have been treated as being such a pariah by her fellow Jews as she is portrayed early on in this scene from the film, and other previous scenes including her in The Chosen.

While it is true that Jesus is said to have healed this woman, the main point that the Gospel authors want to communicate is that Jesus has the power to destroy the forces of death. For when the woman reaches out to touch Jesus’ garment, the text tells us that “power had gone out from him” (Mark 5:30).

Thiessen goes on and says that because of this woman’s near perpetual state of ritual impurity due to her medical condition, it would not have been possible for her to have children. The woman’s healing probably also made her fertile again. “The woman who has had a dead womb for twelve years is dead no longer; she is now able to have children” (Thiessen, p. 83).

This power that uncontrollably comes out from Jesus shows that Jesus’ body contains “some sort of contagious holiness” (Thiessen, p. 84). Instead of the contagion of ritual impurity being extended to Jesus, the exact opposite happens, thereby healing the woman. The power of Jesus reverses the contagion and attacks the source of the ritual impurity. Thiessen concludes: “Jesus does not intend to destroy the ritual purity system; rather, his body naturally destroys the source of ritual impurities” (Thiessen, p. 85).

Corpses and Ritual Impurity

Touching a corpse in ancient Judaism was fairly unique in that it led to a kind of ritual impurity, even if a person does not touch a dead person. All you needed to be was in the same room as the dead person, and that made you unclean for a seven-day period (Numbers 19:14-16).

As in other chapters of Thiessen’s book, his chapter on corpse ritual impurity goes into detail about how other cultures surrounding ancient Israel viewed corpse ritual impurity as well. Again, coming in contact with a dead person, either through touching or mere physical presence in the same room, was not sinful. But it did create a state of ritual impurity. During the Second Temple period of Judaism, even a woman who suffered a miscarriage would become ritually impure.

During the years of Jesus’ youth, Herod Antipas built a city on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, named after the emperor Tiberius. But he had a difficult time convincing Jews to live there, as the city was built on a graveyard. To live on a graveyard puts you in a state of ritual impurity, requiring a seven-day purification ritual before traveling to the Jerusalem temple for worship. Why go through that hassle? (Thiessen, chapter 5, pp. 104-105).

When Jesus goes to heal the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5), the girl is dead before Jesus even gets there. In order to enter the dead girl’s room, Jesus enters into a state of ritual impurity. Again, there is nothing which suggests that this ritually impure state involved any sin of any kind. But what is different about Jesus is that he heals the daughter, and she is brought back to life. While the physical miracle itself is impressive, it is more than that. Instead of showing disdain for the ritual impurity system, Jesus accepts the validity of it. Furthermore, Jesus’ healing actually reverses the flow of ritual impurity. The little girl has the source of death removed from her.

“The girl’s body has been separated from the source of her impurity—death. This revivification is both miraculous and previously unimagined in priestly laws pertaining to corpse impurity” (Theissen, chapter 5, p. 105).

Likewise, at the moment of Jesus’ death described in Matthew 27:50-53, the corpses of many are brought to life, an episode unique in that Gospel. The point which Matthew is making is that there is something about Jesus which defeats the power of death, reversing the effects of ritual impurity.

“In the death of Jesus, people who had apparently become irreversibly impure in death were raised and therefore set on the path to purity…. And Jesus’s death, the moment when the forces of impurity appeared to overwhelm Jesus himself, results in the holy ones undergoing the first step toward purification while in their tombs and then coming out of these places of impurity in order to enter into the holy city of Jerusalem.” (Thiessen, chapter 5, p. 105-106).

Again, the episode regarding the “raised saints” at the moment of Jesus’ death is not just some random weird event, such that none of the other Gospels simply ignore. Rather, it is something that Matthew does intentionally in order to accentuate and establish Jesus’ character and validate his mission.

One of Luke’s most well known stories is the parable of the Good Samaritan, in Luke 10:25-37. Many often interpret the story as a rebuke against the supposed legalism of the priests and Levites. But according to Matthew Thiessen, Jesus is actually affirming the Jewish system of dealing with ritual impurity, but he is ruling against how the system is to be applied. In verse 30, the beaten man is left “half dead” on the side of the road after being beaten by robbers. But is he really dead? How does one know?

According to Leviticus 21:1-3, a priest or Levite was forbidden to touch a corpse, unless it was the body of a close relative, lest they become ritually impure. But in order to see if a person laying on the side of the road was really dead, they would have to risk becoming ritually impure. So, the priest and Levite avoid the situation. But Jesus is saying that the teaching about loving one’s neighbor, in Leviticus 19:18, takes precedence over Leviticus 21:1-3. Thiessen adds that the compassion of the Samaritan leads to less ritual impurity and not more:³

“In Jesus’s story, a priest or Levite who contracts corpse contamination in order to see whether the man is still alive does so with the result that he either (a) preserves the life of the beaten man and therefore saves the world from one more corpse and its concomitant, never-ending ability to pollute or (b) buries the man’s remains, thereby honoring and loving the dead man, and marks the burial site so that other people do not unwittingly contract corpse contamination. Either scenario inevitably leads to less corpse impurity” (Thiessen, chapter 5, p. 108)

Therefore, instead of dismissing the Levitical anxiety about avoiding ritual impurity, and condemning the ritual impurity system as a whole, Jesus is affirming that the better way of the Samaritan reduces the amount of ritual impurity one has to deal with. In other words, the priest and Levite have wrongly interpreted and applied Levitical law in this case. Remember, there is no sin in becoming ritually impure, but a lack of compassion would be linked to moral impurity, which is sin. Jesus is about removing as much ritual impurity as possible, but he is not against the Jewish ritual impurity system in principle, as some kind of cold-hearted legalism.

The point of Theissen’s detailed examination of Jesus and ritual impurity gained from contact with corpses suggests that Jesus’ exposure to the dead, while leading to his own ritual impurity, nevertheless is not the end of the story. Instead, Jesus’ presence indicates that he had the power to reverse the course of ritual impurity, attacking the very source of those forces which lead to death. “Jesus was a source of holiness that was even more powerful than death itself” (Thiessen, chapter 5, p. 119).

Matthew Thiessen, not to be confused with the Relient K musician, is a biblical scholar who wrote Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospel’s Portrayal of Ritual Impurity Within First-Century Judaism

Impure Spirits as Demons

Two chapters towards the end of Jesus and the Forces of Death continues with this idea that Jesus was not against the Jewish system of dealing with ritual impurity, but that Jesus was about destroying the sources which lead to states of ritual impurity in people. In his chapter on “Jesus and Demonic Impurity,” Thiessen argues that the demons which possess people in the Gospels, such as the Gerasene demoniac of Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, and Luke 8:26-39, are actually impure “pneuma“; that is, impure spirits, the Greek word “pneuma” corresponds to the English word “spirit.”

The demons which encounter Jesus are afraid of Jesus, fearing that Jesus has come to destroy them. The first demonic encounter in Mark’s Gospel has the demon saying: “What have you to do with us? Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24)

One idea that came to mind as I was reading Thiessen is to consider why demonic possession seems relatively less prevalent now, while being a prominent feature in the Gospels. Thiessen cites rabbinic traditions after the New Testament era which suggests that the establishment of God’s tabernacle with Moses expelled demons from the earth. Could it be that Jesus’ power to destroy the forces of death accomplished a great victory through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, some 2,000 years ago? Reports of demonic activity have surely not gone away in the modern age. But perhaps the incarnation of the divine Jesus in earthly humanity centuries ago, where God tabernacled among us (John 1:14), resulted in such heightened, dramatic stories of exorcism, a great spiritual showdown, triggered by the arrival of the death defeating power of Jesus in world history.

The coming of Jesus precipitated a great onslaught of demonic activity, spiritual warfare between Jesus and the forces of death. In the end, Jesus’ own death and subsequent resurrection defeated those powers of darkness. We can take courage that any spiritual warfare we experience today means that the death defeating power of Jesus is still present to have victory over those dark powers.

Jesus’ View of the Sabbath: Observe the Sabbath, Except When Other Principles in Jewish Law Take Precedence

In Thiessen’s final chapter on the Sabbath, the author makes the argument that Jesus was not against the Levitical system which taught Jews to honor the Sabbath. Rather, Jesus taught that mercy and charity takes precedence over strict Sabbath observance at certain times, an interpretation of Torah which actually was not unique to the Jewish Jesus.

For example, in the controversy about Jesus’ disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, Thiessen acknowledges that Mark’s version (Mark 2:23-28) makes some assumptions from Mark’s readers, which are not apparent. Matthew’s version (Matthew 12:1-8) fills in the details which Mark omits.

In Matthew, Jesus asks his critics: “Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and yet are blameless?” (Matt. 12:5). This is where Matthew makes explicit that which Mark assumes implicitly. Perhaps what Jesus’ disciples are doing is kind of a temple service, similar to what the priests did in the temple.

Interestingly, Thiessen cites a passage from the Book of Jubilees, a prominent work from Second Temple Judaism, which suggests that there is a type of work, performed by the priests of the Temple, which can be done on the Sabbath. Even in the Mishnah, a product of post-Second Temple Judaism, at least some Jews recognized that temple service trumps Sabbath observance, and that this was well within bounds of a proper interpretation of Levitical law (Thiessen, p. 157).

Nevertheless, Jesus in Matthew states that there is something greater than the temple here (Matthew 12:6). Quoting from the Septuagint version of Hosea 6:6, Jesus in Matthew 12:7 says that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Not only does temple service trump the Sabbath, so does extending mercy trump temple service. Therefore, mercy trumps the Sabbath. Since Jesus’ disciples were hungry, in need of food, by plucking the grain in order to eat, this meant that Jesus believed extending charity outweighed concerns about the technical requirements for Sabbath observance.

Clearly, not all Jews agreed with Jesus, Jubilees, or the later Mishnah. If anything, this demonstrates that there is no such thing as “the” Jewish interpretation of the Books of Moses. As the common adage today even goes, wherever you find two Jews, you will find three different interpretations. Within the context of Second Temple Judaism, it is better to think of multiple “Judaisms” in Jesus’ day as opposed to some idealistic, monolithic Judaism. Two of the most famous rabbis of the first century BCE, Shammai and Hillel, disagreed on what took priority. Shammai prioritized Sabbath observance over acts of charity and mercy, whereas Hillel aligned with Jesus, prioritizing acts of charity and mercy over the Sabbath (Thiessen, p. 157).

Conflicting interpretations of how to practice Sabbath were simply a part of the “Judaisms” of Jesus’ day, in other areas as well. Regarding warfare, some Jews believed that Jews should not fight on the Sabbath, suggesting that Sabbath observance trumped military engagement. Other Jews believed just that opposite, that Jews were obligated to defend themselves, even if attacked on the Sabbath. Much like the Christian debate today about pacifism, Jews during the Second Temple period were not all of one mind as to what took precedence: military engagement, even in cases of defense, versus strict observance of the Sabbath.

This might upset some Christians who would prefer to see no conflict in the Law of Moses. But the idea that certain Levitical rules outweigh other Levitical rules, in terms of precedence, is difficult to ignore. The primary point is to say that Jesus is not being dismissive about the Sabbath. Rather, Jesus honors the Sabbath, but he does allow for other principles from Levitical law to come into play, and take precedence over Sabbath observance when the situation calls for it.⁴

Concluding Thoughts

There is some room here to criticize certain aspects of Thiessen’s otherwise wonderful book. Thiessen does a commendable job focusing on his thesis, one that should resonate with Christians across the theological spectrum. He succeeds in his aim to push back against certain anti-Jewish mindsets into the Gospels, which should be a concern for all readers of the Bible. However, there are a few moments where a tendency to simply assert common critical conclusions about the Bible betrays a kind of aversion to a purely historically orthodox Christian perspective, albeit in Thiessen’s modest, toned-down form. For example, Thiessen casually asserts that the Book of Daniel was written in the second-century BCE, without any mention as to why he accepts this date, an assertion which will undoubtedly disturb the minds of those who hold to a more traditional, sixth-century BCE date for Daniel (Thiessen, p. 182).

In another example, Thiessen repeats a skeptical claim famously made by Bart Ehrman, that Mark’s Gospel makes a “mistake” by confusing Abiathar with Ahimelech as the high priest, in Jesus’ retelling of the story of David and his men eating the showbread, recalled in Mark 2:23-28 (Thiessen, p. 153-156). This supposed “mistake” has been answered thoughtfully by British Bible teacher, Andrew Wilson. Mark’s supposed “mistake” that Abiathar was the high priest when David and his men ate the showbread was actually an intentional allusion to the old priestly line represented by Abiathar which went away under Solomon, to make way for a new priesthood. Symbolically, the priests in Jesus’ day had been Abiathar. Yet with the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus is now the new David and Jesus’ disciples are the new priests, a typological allusion in keeping with Thiessen’s thesis. In other words, modern readers might consider Mark to be mistaken. Yet a first century Jewish reader, saturated in the world of the Old Testament, would probably have picked up on Jesus’ allusion and seen his point.⁵

But as with his other excellent work, The Jewish Paul, these ever-so-slight tips towards controversial critical conclusions about the Bible need not keep the reader from benefiting greatly from Theissen’s overall thesis, and his detailed argumentation. Thiessen’s exegesis is careful and precise, so readers who just want the bottom line might be frustrated with all of that detail, but frankly, I appreciate that sort of thing. Afterall, the author is trying to mount a strong case that Jesus as presented in the Gospels has been terribly misread. To argue that a highly respected scholar such as Raymond Brown could get Jesus seriously wrong at points, is a daunting task. I think Thieseen succeeds.

One thing I do greatly admire about Theissen is that he confesses that getting a purely objective understanding of Jesus and the world of the New Testament is a bit of hubris. He effectively shows that much of both conservative and progressive scholarship over the past many decades has managed to fashion a Jesus that loses sight of his full Jewishness. We all have our biases, which tends to color our conclusions.

Also, I wish Thiessen, in his chapter on the Sabbath, would have done more in understanding the Sabbath’s particular relationship with Levitical law, with respect to the Sabbath’s role in God’s creation purposes. There is indeed a sense in which the Sabbath is tied to temple practices, but we also have the theme of Sabbath established at creation, in Genesis. It is not clear from Thiessen as to how Sabbath is understood by Jesus, with respect to creation. However, my hunch is that whereas Sabbath in Levitical law is highly regulated, Sabbath at creation is more of a general principle without explicit directives associated with it; such as, the Sabbath being tied to a particular day of the week, as opposed to another day.

I have one additional criticism: Thiessen does not really help the reader to understand how Jesus’ teaching and actions with respect to ritual impurity can help the Christian to apply certain lessons regarding ritual impurity today. In other words, gaining a better understanding of how Jesus upheld the legitimacy of the ancient Jewish ritual impurity system, while opposing the sources of ritual impurity itself, does help us to read Scripture better. But how does it actually impact our ability to apply Jesus’ teaching to our lives today? This is particularly important in view of the historical fact that the Jewish temple, which was “ground zero” for Torah observance, was destroyed in 70 CE. Judaism had to basically reinvent itself, re-envisioning how to deal with ritual impurity now in a world without a temple. What is the significance of ritual impurity today, for the Christian?

I would argue that it is primarily the Apostle Paul who helps us out here. As the designated apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is placed in a position where he articulates his Gospel, which enables the inclusion of those Gentiles who believe Jesus to be the promised Messiah, without requiring those Gentiles to embrace the full standard of Jewish impurity regulations. This would not be because Paul was somehow dismissive of the Levitical impurity system either. Like Jesus, Paul saw that the Levitical prescriptions for dealing with ritual impurity were actually good things. Nevertheless, the question I am left with is how Christians today should think about ritual impurity, if at all, in terms of living the Christian life.⁶

Yet as the late Michael Heiser has argued, Paul in our New Testament gives us the fullest expression of a new definition of sacred space, expanding the territory of the holy with respect to the profane. No longer is the temple in Jerusalem the primary entity which marks out sacred space. Now it is the church, those Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. Heiser argues that the Greek term hagios, often translated as “saints” in the translations like the ESV, in places like Colossians 1:2, is better translated as God’s “holy ones.” The saints of God, members of Christ’s body, the church, are actually the “holy ones.” Through progressive revelation, the people of God, all of those who believe in Jesus, Jew or Gentile, have become “holy ones.”

One might add that Jesus was not concerned about becoming ritually impure himself. Rather, he had the power to overcome the source of ritual impurity, and reverse its ill effects. Furthermore, the same Holy Spirit that dwells in Jesus is the same Spirit who dwells in us as believers in Jesus, and empowers the church for ministry, to destroy the forces of death. We should be like Jesus in working towards that which also destroys the forces of death.

Again, to be “holy” is not primarily about being without sin, though it still indicates that moral impurity is something that Christians still need to fight against. It does suggest that part of the Gospel message is that God is taking that which is profane and supernaturally making it holy, an idea which totally reframes the whole of the ancient Jewish ritual impurity system. Perhaps Matthew Thiessen will write yet another book which fleshes this idea out a bit more. In the meantime, Jesus and the Forces of Death is a great way to start thinking about how Jesus’ mission was about destroying the forces which lead to death.

Notes:

^{1. A good example from the The Chosen film series can be found in the recent Season Five, Episode Two, when Jesus and the disciples are in Jerusalem for the Passover, at the beginning of what we now consider to be Holy Week. In one scene, John the Son of Zebedee joins his father to present anointing oils to the house of the High Priest. Malchus, a servant to the High Priest, greets the Zebedees and says that in order to deliver the oils, they need to say to an older religious leader that they have not done anything that might render them ritually impure. John’s father is allowed to step forward, but John himself is turned away. Presumably, John is turned away due to some form of ritual impurity. In the next scene, John discusses with Malchus what led to John being in a state of ritual impurity. John confesses that it was contact with “leprosy” that did it, and Malchus says he also did the same; that is, made contact with “leprosy.” But is this what really happened? The laugh that John and Malchus have together is punctuated by Malchus saying that the “old men” are “punishing us young men for having bodies.” I did not catch it the first time, but it is apparent that John (and Malchus) became ritually impure due to experiencing nocturnal emissions. Director Dallas Jenkins admits that this unspoken, comical moment is indeed about a bodily discharge experienced by these young men, thus making them ritually impure.

↩}

^{2. I highly recommend that Veracity readers go back and carefully read the reviews of both Daniel Boyarin and Michael Heiser’s books for more background. Such background is also covered in greater detail in Matthew Thiessen’s book, which primarily focuses on Jesus’ approach to questions of ritual impurity.↩}

^{3. In a 2021 YouTube interview with the author, Matthew Thiessen argues that Jewish study of the Torah recognizes that sometimes the application of specific Levitical regulations would at times come in conflict with one another. Jewish Torah meditation, both ancient and modern, have been concerned about which Levitical instructions should take precedence over others when there is conflict.↩}

^{4. I might add that Thiessen includes an appendix which echoes the argument made by Daniel Boyarin, in his The Jewish Gospels, reviewed here on Veracity. In Boyarin’s book, Boyarin contends that most translations of Mark 7:19 are often mistranslated as that Jesus “declared all foods clean.” This mistranslation suggests that Jesus abrogated the kosher food laws. Thiessen makes the same case as Boyarin, that Jesus kept kosher.↩}

^{5. See Veracity article on the Abiathar/Ahimelech controversy as explained by Andrew Wilson, which avoids ad-hoc harmonization advocated by some well-meaning Christians. As to the Book of Daniel, I hope to write a blog post some day with an alternatively explanation for the dating of the Book of Daniel. ↩}

^{6. In a 2021 YouTube interview with the author, Matthew Thiessen cites the work of other scholars who argue that ritual impurity does not apply for Gentiles, according to the Hebrew Scriptures. Ritual impurity only had to deal with the tabernacle/temple system, and so, without a temple, the entire schema behind ritual impurity needs to be rethought. Many Jews today are simply content to live within the reality that they are in a state of ritual purity perpetually without a temple. Nevertheless, Gentiles visiting the temple area were only allowed into the Court of the Gentiles, in the Jerusalem temple built by Herod when it stood, but that court was not technically part of the temple. Other cultures contemporaneous with ancient Judaism had their own concepts of ritual impurity, but they did not exactly correspond with Jewish ways of thought. Thiessen’s bottom line is that ritual impurity is something that Christians today no longer need to think about in terms of practicing their own faith. In another interview on the Mere Orthodoxy podcast, Thiessen argues that for the most part, the Apostle Paul does not think that concerns of ritual impurity are relevant for Gentile believers. But there are some exceptions, where certain notions of ritual impurity thinking still matter. For example, Gentile Christians are warned in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 not to partake of the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner. For when Christians do such a thing they reap judgment upon themselves, explaining why some Christians have gotten sick and even died. ↩}

Leave a comment | tags: daniel boyarin, leviticus, Matthew Thiessen, michael heiser, ritual impurity | posted in The Gospels

June 13, 2025

Does the Bible Forbid Christians From Getting Tattoos?

By Clarke Morledge

Does the Bible forbid a Christian from getting a tattoo? The answer is a qualified “No,” but it does require some unpacking to explain the qualification.

Tattoos have become increasingly popular, among non-Christians and Christians alike today. But they are controversial. Some say that the Bible is OKAY with tattoos, while others disagree with that. Let us take a look at this controversial topic….

The closest Hebrew word to our English “tattoo” is found only one place in the Bible:

“You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28 ESV).

The Hebrew word transliterated into English as “qa-aqa,” is translated here in the ESV translation as “tattoo,” or in other translations as “tattoo mark” (CSB, NASB, NIV, NRSVue). The NET translation reads this as “incise a tattoo.”¹

The Book of Leviticus is often ignored by many Christians, as it has a lot of information about purity rituals and regulations, which tend to bog readers down. But there are insights that we can gain from this book that we can apply to our lives today as Christians.

A Fairly Short Look at a Controversial Topic: Do Tattoos and Christians Mix Well Together?

As with any verse in Scripture, it is crucial to understand the context. Leviticus 19:28 is first and foremost found within the Law of Moses, in a set of prescriptions given to the Israelites as to what they should not do as followers of Yahweh. In the two prior verses, the Israelites are told not to interpret omens or tell fortunes (v. 26) and not to round off the hair on the temples or mar the edges of one’s beard (v.27). Before the mention of “tattoo” in verse 28, the Israelites are told not to make any cuts on the body for the dead.

In view of these various restrictions, some sensible (and some frankly a bit weird … according to modern standards), the context would indicate that these forbidden practices were associated with idolatry. The Israelite people were to worship Yahweh and stay completely away from practices associated with worshipping other gods. Tattoos, apparently, in the world of the ancient Israelite, were somehow linked with idol worship.

The idea of “cutting” the body was associated with the worship of foreign gods in 1 Kings 18:28. It was also forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:1-2, urging faithfulness to the God of Israel instead of worship other gods:

You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

The context for the prescription against tattoos is with respect to avoiding idolatry. Some scholars even suggest that since marking one as a slave is associated with piercing the ear, then this verse also anticipates a movement away from the practice of slavery (Exodus 21:6; Deut. 15:17).²

Since this is the only reference to tattoos in the Bible, there is then no obvious reference to it in the New Testament. One could appeal to Genesis 1:26-28, that humans have been made in God’s image, and therefore tattoos, or any other disfiguration of the body is an insult to the creator. However, this type of appeal has a lot of guesswork to it and few scholars would defend it.

Some might even also cite 1 Corinthians 6:19 to say that our bodies as New Testament believers are a temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as this line of reasoning goes, Christians should not get tattoos. However, the Old Testament temple, which corresponds to this referent in the New Testament, had plenty of images and markings on it, such as cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:29). Therefore, it is difficult to forbid a New Testament “temple” for having a marking on it (the human body), if the Old Testament temple had plenty of markings. Again, this kind of argument against tattoos is difficult to sustain.

Given that Christians today are under the New Covenant, and not the Old Covenant, which is often associated with certain cultic practices and prohibitions associated with ancient Israel, as found in this passage of Leviticus 19, then Christians today are not forbidden to get tattoos.³

Someone put an “agape” tattoo on their arm… Tattoos have been becoming increasingly popular to get, even among Christians. But is it really “OKAY” for a Christian to get a tattoo?

Tattoos Today Are Not Prohibited in Principle, But There Are Still Things to Consider Before You Agree to Get One

Some Christians will get “Christian” symbols tattooed on themselves, as a kind of witness for the Christian faith and/or a conversation starter. But physical symbols can easily get misinterpreted. How does someone know that such symbols really are “Christian” and not something else?

In early 2025, then Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth learned the hard way that tattoos can be interpreted in variety of ways, after being relentlessly grilled during his Senate confirmation hearing. Hegesth has a “Jerusalem Cross” tattooed on his chest, which some critics say is associated with certain white supermacist or otherwise violent extremist groups. Is it really worth having to go through all of the trouble as to why you wear a controversial tattoo permanently on your body?

The possible association with idolatry is something which every believer should keep in mind. Even though most modern people do not get tattoos in order to declare their allegiance to other gods, some people still associate getting at least certain kinds of tattoos with idolatry.

An extreme example of when getting tattoos crosses the line into idolatry is with gangs. In El Salvador, gangs like MS13 use tattoos (lots of them) as a means of identifying someone as a gang member, where strict allegiance to the game is expected, and gang members often engage in outright Satanic activities. If such is the case, then out of allegiance to Jesus, Christians should not get those types of tattoos. Is it really worth the risk to get a tattoo, if it might lead to some serious confusion which can severely impact your life?

While Christians do have the freedom in Christ to get a tattoo or not get a tattoo, it is important to consider that wearing a tattoo might cause another believer in Jesus to struggle, particularly depending on what kind of tattoo it is. Consider the example of gangs and tattoos again. If a Christian has given up their identity with a gang, in pursuit of following Jesus, then other Christians might want to reconsider getting a tattoo, or if they already have one, they might reconsider public display of their tattoo(s), out of a sense of encouraging a former gang member to wholeheartedly pursue their walk with Jesus. If a Christian does get a tattoo, one might consider placing the tattoo on a part of the body that can be covered with clothing easily, out of respect for others.

Getting a tattoo is not simply about doing something you like. It is also about having wisdom and showing love in your relationships with other people.

Now, time for some full disclosure: Personally, I am no fan of tattoos. I do not find them attractive on a person. I know that getting a tattoo of some sort has become very popular, particularly among younger people. Nevertheless, I really do not understand the appeal for why someone would want to get a tattoo in the first place. But it would be wrong for me to insist that another Christian should not get a tattoo, when the Scriptural support for such a prohibition is rather weak. Simply wanting the Bible to say something does not make it true!

There are probably a lot of other reasons for not getting tattoos that are more practical in nature, that have little to do with Scripture. For example, one should think twice about getting a tattoo, if there is a possibility that several years down the road you might eventually regret having obtained that tattoo. I had a friend once who tattooed the name of his girlfriend on his leg…. then they broke up….. Not a smooth move!!

That is reason enough for me to stay away from tattoos altogether! Also, there is always some risk with getting a tattoo, from a health perspective, even under the safest conditions.

The bottom line is that getting a tattoo is a matter of the conscience. So, while ultimately, there is no clear moral prohibition against a Christian getting a tattoo, it might not always be the wisest thing to do. Think about what you are getting yourself into before you rush off to get some mark imprinted on yourself.

Notes:

^{1. This Hebrew word transliterated into English as qa-aqa is notoriously difficult to translate, as it only appears this one time in the Hebrew Bible, and scholars are unsure about its meaning. It is however closely associated with another Hebrew word, transliterated to English as “ke-to-vet,” which means to “imprint” or to “mark.” Bible scholar Chad Bird at 1517.org explains in the following video.↩}

^{2. Richard Hess, Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), p. 754; The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition, notes for Lev. 19:28). John Walton argues that tattoo marks were used to mark someone’s loyalty to a particular god, as we see in various Egyptian mummies. In Mesopotamia, most known tattoos were either slave markings or marks made by priests designating which god they serve. See Walton and Keener, NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, footnote 28 on Leviticus 19. The question about tattoos highlights a lot of issues that can be traced back to how Christians interpret the Book of Leviticus, a topic discussed in the Veracity blog series on Leviticus. ↩}

^{3. For a more thorough look at the question of tattoos within the context of the Old Covenant, and how this, and other controversial Levitical regulations relate to Christians today, the following teaching video by Christian apologist Mike Winger from a few years ago might provide some help. Mike Winger is more of a pastor/apologist than an academic Bible scholar, but in this video I think he does a pretty good job laying out the issues, more broadly. As he states in the first few minutes of the video, the division among Christians over tattoos is very concerning, and we should work hard to try to find peace between different Christians who disagree over the topic of tattoos. ↩}

Leave a comment | tags: leviticus, tattoos | posted in Topics

May 30, 2025

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part Two)

By Clarke Morledge

What should be our motivation for giving to the work of Christian ministry? Building on the previous post in this series, we can take a good look at this question.

God’s generosity towards us should be our motivation for our giving generously towards God’s work in the world. Yet some Christians argue that believers should give a tenth of one’s income to the local church, and anything above and beyond that optionally to any form of Christian work. Such faithful Christians are well-intended in this way of thinking, yet the previous blog post in this series suggests that the biblical interpretation behind this mindset is problematic. There is a better way to think about giving.

However, before one can neatly, or perhaps too neatly, conclude that the Old Covenant tithe is no longer required under the New Covenant, it is important to address a strong counterargument. As I was reading Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, I learned that a number of advocates for a New Covenant tithe argue that the concept of the tithe precedes the actual Old Covenant instantiated under Moses. Because the tithe comes prior to the giving of the Law, it is argued that any reading of the New Testament can not invalidate any commands of God given prior to the giving of the Law to Moses in the wilderness.

Once this thoughtful counterargument is addressed, certain principles can be drawn from the Old Testament tithe, that can help us to see the pattern of New Testament, generous, grace-motivated giving.

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?

A Weakness in the “Post-Tithing” View

One particular weakness of a “post-tithing” view, which suggests that an exact tenth of one’s income is neither necessarily nor absolutely required to be given to the local church, is that there is no explicit New Testament reference which says that tithing no longer applies to the New Testament Christian, one under the New Covenant. Advocates of tithing today do have a point here. Paul explicitly teaches that Gentile followers of Christ are no longer required to undergo physical circumcision (Galatians 5:1-6). But there is no specific statement in the New Testament corresponding to tithing like this.

Therefore, if someone holds the view that every law mentioned in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians today living under the New Covenant, unless there is some explicit statement saying that something is negated or otherwise abrogated in the pages of the New Testament, then this would be a good argument against any kind of “post-tithing” view (A “post-tithing” view relegates the tithe to belonging only to the Old Covenant).

However, there are plenty of commands given in the Levitical law which Christians today do not necessarily follow, with no explicit mention about them in the New Testament. Christians in the banking or home mortgage industry continue to offer loans to people, by charging interest, despite the command in Leviticus 25:36-37, which says the Israelites were forbidden to charge their fellow Israelite any interest under any circumstance. I am probably wearing some piece of clothing today, made up of a mixture of cotton and some synthetic fabric, despite the fact that Leviticus 19:19 forbade the ancient Israelite, aside from the Levitical priests, from wearing mixtures of any kind.

The New Testament says nothing about the ethics of charging interest on loans, nor about what types of fabric a Christian should wear.

The reason why advocates of a “post-tithing” approach to giving make their case is because tithing, along with not charging any interest in loans, or wearing two different kinds of fabric, are all regulations established in the first five books of the Bible, which are closely associated with the ancient Israelite worship of Yahweh at the tabernacle/temple. Because Jesus Christ has fulfilled the Law of Moses, these temple-specific practices are no longer required by the New Testament believer. However, what if it could be demonstrated that tithing was an established practice, commanded by God, prior to the giving of the Law to Moses?¹

In what sense does the Old Testament teaching on tithing teach us as Christians living under the New Covenant how to practice our faith today?

The Melchizedek Factor and Tithing

The primary proof text for the argument of a “pre-Law” prescription for the tithe involves the figure of Melchizedek, as taught in Genesis and reinforced in the New Testament Book of Hebrews. In Genesis 14, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, had been taken captive, and so Abraham engaged in a successful military mission to save Lot. The Melchizedek passage in Genesis is fairly brief, where Melchizedek meets Abraham (who was still called Abram at that point in time) after the latter’s victory:²

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

And Abram gave him a tenth of everything (Genesis 14:18-20 ESV).

For such a brief passage, Jewish writers in the period of Second Temple Judaism made a big deal about Melchizedek, an idea reinforced in the Book of Hebrews. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls mention Melchizedek frequently. One thing that is so curious about this passage is the concise reference to a tithe, or “tenth”: “Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”³

What motivated Abraham to give a tithe to Melchizedek? Unfortunately, the text never tells us. There is nothing in the text which says that God commanded Abraham to give this tithe. It is quite probable that Abraham’s tithe was given voluntarily. If it was voluntary, then it is quite unlike the tithes taught in Leviticus, which are mandatory and not voluntary.⁴

Also, the text only tells us of this one time Abraham gave a tithe. Nothing tells us that the tithe was repeated. Again, this is quite unlike the tithe requirements found in Leviticus.⁵

Melchizedek in the Book of Hebrews: What Was the Intent of Author?

Nevertheless, the example of Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek is often pivotal for those who propose an on-going relevance for the tithe for New Covenant believers. Hebrews 7:1-10 acts as New Testament commentary on the incident with Abraham and Melchizedek:

(1) For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, (2) and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. (3) He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

(4) See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! (5) And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. (6) But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. (7) It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. (8) In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. (9) One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, (10) for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

The context for Hebrews 7:1-10 is crucial for understanding what is going on in this passage. Hebrews 7:1-10 belongs to an extended discourse arguing that Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, from Hebrews 5-10. The main argument throughout the book is that Jesus is better than the angels, better than Moses, and better than the Levitical priestly system. The author of the text is trying to tell his readers to remember that Jesus is greater, and so his readers should not go back to their old ways. In Hebrews 7:1-10, we are told about the greatness of Melchizedek, and that the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical priesthood. Later in Hebrews 7:11-22, the text specifically associates Jesus as being the one who stands in the priestly order of Melchizedek.⁶

The point of Abraham paying a tithe to Melchizedek is to acknowledge that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, and that the greater one blessed the lesser one. Since the Levites descend from Abraham, Melchizedek’s priesthood is shown to be greater than the Levitcal priesthood. Therefore, since Jesus is a priest within the order of Melchizedek, the priesthood of Jesus is greater than the Levitical priesthood. To make sure that the reader gets the message, the author summarizes the lesson to be learned:

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Hebrews 8:1-2 ESV)

Pro-tithing advocates will then appeal to Hebrews 7 to say that just as Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek that Christians today are to pay tithes to Jesus, via the local church. In Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, Hemphill and Eklund conclude this part of their argument by saying: “If Abram tithed to Melchizedek, would it not follow that the Christian would offer tithes to the great high priest who is greater than Melchizedek?“⁷

However, this conclusion merely assumes that this teaching on tithing is part of the intent of the author. While this might be a secondary purpose of the author, such a purpose is not made explicit in the text. Instead, Abraham’s tithe is mentioned as an illustration of the main point that the author of Hebrews is trying to make.

Furthermore, even if this is a fully warranted conclusion, it is difficult to interpret what kind of tithe the Christian is expected to give. In Abraham’s case, Hebrews 7 explicitly tells us in verse 7 that the tithe came from the spoils of war. Does this mean that the only situation that applies here is that the Christian should tithe when they have succeeded in a military battle, and obtained booty which could be tithed to the local church? If so, this would be a most odd application of tithing from the New Testament.⁸

The Levites Tithing Through the “Loins of Their Ancestor?”

If Abraham’s tithing on war booty is not in view, then how does one arrive at the standard pro-tithing conclusion from this passage? On what basis should this Abrahamic tithe be connected to giving a tenth of one’s income to the local church? Why should it not also include all of the tithes that were required of the Israelites, which totals up to around 23%, including the Festival and Charity tithes, and not just the Levitical tithes given to the priests?

Moreover, verse 9 suggests that Abraham was a proxy by which the Levites were able to pay their “tithes” to Melchizedek. Levi, the father of the Levites, was represented by Abraham before Melchizedek, through the “loins of their ancestor” (ESV). The NIV translates the next verse (verse 10), “because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”

The author intends this as an illustration to demonstrate that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the priesthood of the Levites. At best, one could say that Abraham is still a proxy tithe payer to Melchizedek on behalf of Christians today, who form the royal priesthood of the New Covenant. But it does not necessarily follow that because of this, Christians today should pay tithes. At best, assuming that we are supposed to tithe to Jesus, that can only possibly make sense if somehow Jesus was and still is Melchizedek, instead of specifically being a priest in the order of Melchizedek, as the text argues. True, Melchizedek is described as one who is not mortal, an analogy to Jesus’ resurrected existence. But identifying Jesus as Melchizedek himself is a speculative argument which goes beyond the evidence within the text, an argument which is at best tangential to the purpose of the author of Hebrews.⁹

Given all of these problems, it is difficult to conclude that the Abraham/Melchizedek tithing example from Genesis and Hebrews establishes the principle of tithing as an ongoing imperative for today’s Christian, on the basis of it being a commandment which precedes the giving of the Law of Moses to the Israelites, and therefore not subject to being superseded.¹⁰

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.

The New Testament Motivation for Giving

After reading all this so far, it might appear to some that there is no use for tithing at all, in all the muddle of these various interpretations. However, this is simply not true. While the pro-tithing argument does have many problems with it, there are some fundamental ideas associated with tithing that are vitally important for a Christian today. Those living under the New Covenant, can apply the principle behind tithing today, without getting caught up in troublesome controversies about tithing percentages, what constitutes “income,” tithing on gross pay versus net pay, who should receive such tithes, whatever they are, etc.

First, it is important to acknowledge that everything belongs to God, anyway… and that means 100%, not just 10% of one’s income. “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it” (Deuteronomy 10:14). Everything we have is a gift from God. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

Furthermore, we are called to be good stewards of all that God has given us, just as Adam was told to tend and care for the garden (Genesis 2:15). Anything we claim for ourselves actually comes to us from God, even our finances (Deut. 8:17-18). Jesus himself instructs his followers to handle worldly wealth well (Luke 16:11). Whatever gifts we have received, we have been instructed to share it well with others (1 Peter 4:1-10). The more we realize how generous God has been towards us, the more we will be able to be generous towards others. Jesus himself said that is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).

The Apostle Paul gives us the most instruction in the New Testament about generous giving, and in supporting the work of the local church, and assisting others in the church. When it comes to supporting Christian workers, Paul tells us that workers deserve their keep (1 Timothy 5:18). He also states this in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14:¹¹

Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

We are therefore commanded to support Christian workers, but how should we go about doing that? Paul gives us a concrete situation, whereby he was raising money to give to the church in Jerusalem, from churches in Gentile areas. One principle here is to set aside funds on a regular basis:¹²

“Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem” (I Corinthians 16:1-3).

The heart of Paul’s model of generous, grace-motivated giving, starting with the right motivations, is found in 2 Corinthians 8-9. These two chapters are worthy of extended meditation, but there are some notable points to highlight: From 2 Corinthians 8:1: “…[from] their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.”

From 2 Corinthians 8:8-9: “ I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.”

What stands out as central in Paul’s thinking comes from 2 Corinthians 9:6-8:

“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.”

God loves a cheerful giver, who gives neither reluctantly nor out of compulsion. This is furthermore why taking the Old Covenant teaching on tithing and somehow flatly importing that into the New Covenant does not match. For under the Old Covenant, the various tithes mentioned in the previous blog post in this series were obligations to serve the practices of the tabernacle/temple. Paul, on the other hand, wants Christians to be motivated to give out of a spirit of generosity, not a spirit of compulsion. Christians can still “tithe” in some sense, but it should be transformed by the New Testament understanding that we are to give generously because God in Christ has given so generously to us.

Yes, we are commanded to give, but the exact percentage, exacting to whom we give, etc., is not something where we can simply check off a box of some 10%, and safely conclude that we have done our part. As one of my former Bible teachers, Dick Woodward, used to say, the best way you can examine the integrity of someone’s walk with Jesus is to look at their datebook and their checkbook. How a person spends their time and their money says a lot about the heart of that person and what they really value.

Nevertheless, there is still a place where tithing can help us very practically. For example, if someone does not know how much to give, then giving a tenth of one’s income (a “tithe”) is a good place to start. One thing that is so useful about the Old Testament’s teaching on tithing is that it establishes a general benchmark for our giving as Christians today. But if some are able to give more than 10%, then why not give more?! There are many generous Christians, grateful for what God has given them, who give upwards of 20 to 30 to 40 percent, if not more of their income! Many Christians have the means to give way more than 10%, so insisting on a “tithe” of 10% and no more, misses the whole point about generous, sacrificial, grace-motivated giving.

In saying that, it must be understood that for someone who is just starting out with sacrificial, generous, grace-motivated giving may not be able to give 10%. If giving 10% is not practical at the present time, what about starting with 1%, and then working one’s way upwards in terms of percentage over time?

When it came to the offerings in Leviticus, the law made provision for those who were unable to make a standard offering, due to poverty or other financial constraints. In Leviticus 5:7, if someone was unable to afford a lamb for an offering, that person could bring two turtledoves or two pigeons instead. A principle to be gained from this is to realize that not everyone is able to give 10% of one’s income to the church, at least at the present time, whereas they might be able to give more in the future.

Some people are burdened by financial debts, such as large credit card imbalances. While someone can start giving to God’s work in small amounts, it is better to try to get out of debt first, so that one can give more in the future. What you do not want to do is take out some kind of loan in order to try to meet some supposed tithing obligation. There are plenty of horror stories out there whereby Christians have put themselves into further debt by trying to meet some supposed tithing obligation, only putting their already fragile financial situation in greater jeopardy, or greater debt. Instead, it is better to give out of the abundance of what one has instead of what one does not have. Yes, we are to give sacrificially, but we should also give wisely and with thoughtfulness.¹³

A Summary on the Bible’s Teaching on Tithing Practice Today

The Old Testament requirement in the Law Moses to tithe to the Temple belongs to the Old Covenant, and not to the New. Instead, the teaching of the New Testament illustrates the principle of sacrificial and generous giving to promote the spread of the Gospel, whether that be through the local church as well as through other ministries across the global church. Just as Christ freely gave to us, we are to freely give as an act of worship to support the work of building God’s Kingdom, through our time, talents, and finances, but not under any compulsion to do so. Giving ten percent is a good baseline, a basic guide for giving, but it is not a legal requirement.

Furthermore, we need to re-evaluate the common teaching that one should be required to “tithe,” or give 10% to the local church, and that anything over that 10% should be considered an optional “offering,” which can be given to any Christian work you wish to support, whether that be your local church, friends who are missionaries, a parachurch ministry, etc. While proponents of such a view mean well, the evidence suggests that such a teaching is nothing more than a tradition, which has been carried down through the years, without much of a careful reading of Scripture.

Nevertheless, it is a tradition that has a good intent behind it. The work of the local church does take precedence. It only makes sense that a Christian should aim to give the lionshare of their regular giving to their local church, of which they are a member, or otherwise involved with on a regular basis, making an investment in that ministry. Giving to missionaries who are friends, parachurch ministries, and other charities probably should come after that. Encouraging believers to give 10% of their income (if not more!) is a good thing, as 100% of what we have belongs to God anyway!

Unfortunately, advocates of tithing can get nervous when they hear New Covenant non-tithing interpreters advance their position, as though a non-tithing position suggests that people should not sacrificially give financially to God’s work. While some might misleadingly lend support to that way of thinking, a responsible New Covenant, non-tithing interpreter of Scripture acknowledges the importance of giving as crucial to the task of accomplishing God’s mission to make disciples of all of the nations. In other words, to say that tithing is no longer a requirement for a believer under the New Covenant does not mean that there is nothing we can learn from the Old Testament about the principle which undergirds the practice of tithing under the Old Covenant.

In my experience, there is a tragic irony here. An emphasis on tithing, that really emphasizes a percentage one “must” give, can actually have the opposite of the desired effect. For if tithing is encouraged in a way that sounds compulsive, many people are actually inclined to give less than if they were presented with a more generous, grace-motivated reason for giving. For if compulsion is felt, the human tendency is either to become resentful or to become burdened with unnecessary guilt, if one can not meet such an obligation.

Instead, when Christians are shown a model of what generosity really looks like, it will encourage them to give more generously. So, it should be no mystery to realize that those Christians who do give at least 10% of their income to God’s work in the world in many cases will actually give much more than 10% of their income, because they greatly enjoy participating in building God’s Kingdom.

It would be foolish to say that the New Covenant abrogation of the Leviticus 25:36-37 restriction against usury, the charging of interest, means that it is somehow okay for a New Covenant believer to rip people off, charging excessive interest in making loans, or otherwise mistreat poor people. Neither is it that the abrogation of the ritual purity requirement to avoid wearing two different kinds of fabric in Leviticus 19:19 mean that it is somehow okay to be disrespectful in how we go about worshipping God. Likewise, to say that a strict form of tithing is part of the Old Covenant and not the New is not some excuse to be stingy. Rather, we can see how the tithe encourages us to be generous in giving, in view of all that Christ has done for us. All of the regulations found in Leviticus have principles behind them that provide instruction for the New Testament Christian, including tithing.¹⁴

One final point bears some consideration: Under the Old Covenant, only the Israelites were expected to tithe to support the work of the Temple. The Gentiles were never under that requirement. But under the New Covenant, the Jews could still support the work of the Temple, while the Temple was still standing until 70 C.E., but the Gentiles who came to know the Messiah were no longer required to become Jewish and undergo the Jerusalem Temple-specific act of tithing. Instead, the New Testament teaches that Christians, Jew and Gentile, are to give and give generously, just as God has given so generously to us.

Such a “post-tithing” position was held by certain early church fathers, such as Epiphanius (315-403), who argued that tithes are like circumcision. Just as circumcision is not required for the Gentile Christian, neither is tithing required either. However, it should be noted that there is no one, single consensus view held by the early church fathers regarding tithing. Some like Epiphanius opposed tithing, whereas other church fathers approved of tithing for all Christians. Since there is a wide variety of perspectives regarding tithing held among those in the early church, an examination of church history is of limited value in determining the correct interpretation of Scripture on this question. Arguments based on the exegesis of Scripture alone should take precedence when considering a Christian view of tithing.¹⁵

In reviewing Perspectives of Tithing: 4 Views, the arguments from Scripture presented primarily by David Croteau advancing a “post-tithing” view, and secondarily by Reggie Kidd are the most convincing and compelling. While there are some helpful insights brought to bear by Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund, and Gary North, in their respective essays, their conclusions come up short in my estimation. The views advanced by Hemphill, Eklund, and North in favor of tithing for today’s Christian present the reader with the most number of problems to be solved, with the fewest solutions offered, whereas Croteau’s proposal, and to some extent, Kidd’s position as well, has the greatest explanatory power. Nevertheless, the very existence of this book indicates that good Christians can and do come to different conclusions regarding the on-going relevance and application of tithing.¹⁶

There are surely some who will read this critique of the book Perspectives on Tithing : 4 Views who will not agree with all of the analysis presented here. That is perfectly fine, if you are not completely convinced. All I hope for is that we find ways to extend grace towards others who hold to different views regarding the applicability of tithing for New Testament believers, and acknowledge that this is a matter of Christian conscience.

Notes:

^{1. This argument about the “pre-Law-of-Moses” nature of tithing is best presented by Hemphill and Eklund in Croteau, pp. 27ff and North in Croteau, editor, Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, pp. 141ff and 151ff. However, some tithing advocates strangely argue the opposite, that Abraham was actually keeping the “law,” as described in Genesis 26:5, thus undercutting the notion that Abraham’s act of giving a tithe to Melchizedek was prior to the “law.” The difficulty here is that one wonders how the word “law” is being defined here. For if “law” is the Law of Moses, then this creates a chronological problem in that Abraham lived centuries before Moses. Therefore, whatever “law” is being referenced in Genesis 26:5 can not be the same thing associated with Moses’ activity related to Mt. Sinai. Part of the confusion stems from the idea of the “Law of Moses,” which is actually a very broad concept. For it can mean the “law” which explicitly involves Moses writing down what was given to him personally, or it could mean the “law” associated with the Law of Moses, which would include all five books of the Pentateuch, including Genesis, from where the Abraham story comes is found, and not necessarily specific directives given by God to Moses. In the case of Abraham in Genesis 26:5, this could simply mean particular commands given by God to Abraham personally, but there is no direct connection here with the Melchizedek passage, as Genesis 26:5 is more of a general statement, honoring Abraham’s obedience to God. But it does not specifically address the question of what motivated Abraham to offer a tithe to Melchizedek. See the Veracity blog post which discusses the “Law of Moses.”↩}

^{2. See this previous Veracity blog post about Melchizedek for more about this mysterious figure more generally.↩}

^{3. The most significant Dead Sea Scroll in this context is the Melchizedek document, also called 11Q13, found at Cave 11 at Qumran. The Hebrew word transliterated into English as ma-a-ser is often translated into English as “tithe”, or “tenth”, and is mentioned other times in the Old Testament. Also, a related Hebrew word for “to tithe”, transliterated as a-sar, is found several places as well, as in Genesis 28:22, regarding Jacob’s tithe. But the case of Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14 presents the strongest pro-tithing case for New Covenant believers, as the story is also discussed in the New Testament in Hebrews 7. Some suggest Jacob’s tithe in Genesis 28 was part of regular, ongoing practice. However, the actual text does not offer any evidence in favor of that view, in that only one instance of giving this tithe was mentioned. Furthermore, Jacob’s tithe is not commanded by God, rather it appears to be a voluntary action. These are the same type of problems found in the Abrahamic tithe to Melchiizedek. This blog post series is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of all of the arguments regarding tithing.↩}

^{4. Of the four participant perspectives in the dialogue in Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, three of the positions differ on the role of tithing for the New Testament believer, but they all agree that in the New Testament there is some aspect of generous giving involved. Gary North’s position is the only one which insists that the tithe is never associated with being a gift, or otherwise voluntary, but rather it is purely an obligation, and the tithe is always 10%. “The tithe is 10 percent of your net income—no more, no less” (Gary North in Croteau, p. 51.). “The tithe is not the standard of Christian giving. It has nothing to do with giving. The tithe is the God-mandated payment by God’s royal priesthood to higher priests who are formally ordained to defend the church and the sacraments, as surely as the Mosaic temple priests were formally ordained to protect the temple and the sacrificial system” (North in Croteau, p. 93). North also states: “My position is that the new covenant tithe, after the cessation of the Mosaic covenant at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, has nothing to do with giving. It has everything to do with paying. You do not owe a gift. You owe a tithe. The other chapters reject my position. They all categorize the tithe under ‘gifts to God‘” (North in Croteau, p. 123). In conclusion, North says: “Pay your tithe. End the guilt” (North in Croteau, p. 125). North’s position relies on guilt to motivate the Christian’s financial contributions to God’s work. Sadly, this is missing the element of grace as the prime motivator for giving. Nor does North pay any serious attention to the exegesis of Croteau who demonstrates that the tithe under the Old Covenant was more like about 23% and not just 10%. It is as though North arbitrarily connects the “tithe” solely to the Levitical tithe supporting the Levitical priesthood, and not to either the Festival or the Charity tithe, and then transfers that Levitical tithe alone to the New Covenant. On the positive side of North’s essay, he associates the tithe more with the notion of covenant, which underscores the importance of loyalty by linking the tithe to an oath (North in Croteau, p. 157). In other words, the paying of the tithe acts as a loyalty pledge towards the God of Israel, under the Old Covenant. The principle of the loyalty oath is carried forward into the New Testament whereby our giving under the New Covenant is an expression of our believing loyalty towards the Messiah. North is correct that making financial contributions to God’s work is an act of demonstrating one’s loyalty to the God of the Bible.↩}

^{5. Some object that simply because the text never tells us about any command of God for Abraham to tithe, or that the text never tells us that Abraham ever tithed again, that this does not preclude any command of God, nor does it preclude any repeated tithing action by Abraham. While these objections do have some weight, it would be incorrect to conclude that Abraham must have received a command from God, and/or that he continued to tithe to anyone repeatedly with regularity. At best, such conclusions should be qualified with a “maybe.” To draw definitive conclusions would be making arguments from silence. For if Scripture wanted us to know these things, then the text would have surely told us. It is much better to base any doctrine of Scripture based on what it says, and not on what it does not say. The pro-tithing proponents in Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views rely on such arguments from silence. Instead, the evidence we possess in Scripture indicate that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was a one-time, voluntary gift.↩}

^{6. The main purpose of Hebrews 7:1-10 for many commentators is to demonstrate that Jesus, as the Great High Priest, is greater than the Levitical priests. Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, is greater than the Levitical priests, who are in the order of Aaron. See George Guthrie, Hebrews: The Expositor’s Commentary, pp. 147ff, and David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Kindle location 3592ff.↩}

^{7. Hemphill and Eklund in Croteau, p. 31.↩}

^{8. Interestingly, Numbers 31:28-30 does describe specifically what the Israelites should pay as tribute to the Lord when obtaining booty from a successful battle. That percentage is just a little over 1 %, which is much less than 10%. In my reading of Hemphill and Eklund, as well as North, in Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, these authors begin with the assumption that tithing is some sort of spiritual principle embedded into reality, and then they read this assumption into the text of Hebrews 7 in order to arrive at their conclusion. In biblical hermeneutics, this practice is called eisegesis; that is, reading something into the text which is not there, as opposed to exegesis; that is, reading something out of the text. Bringing in assumptions outside of the text only makes sense when the exegesis of a text sitting by itself is not sufficient in order to establish its clear meaning. But we must be careful not to bring in such assumptions into our reading of Scripture without sufficient warrant. ↩}

^{9. Melchizedek is a type which points to Jesus, but in Jewish typological interpretation, a type is not the same as that which the type points towards. For example, in Romans 5 when Paul describes Adam as a type who prefigures, or points towards Jesus. Paul is not saying that Adam is Jesus, or that Jesus is Adam. Adam is the type. Adam is the type who points towards Jesus. Likewise, Melchizedek points towards Jesus, but Jesus is not Melchizedek. John Walton, in his commentary on Genesis 14, says that according to the text, Melchizedek is depicted as nothing more than the Canaanite king he is described to be. It is not until the intertestamental period of Second Temple Judaism that his role in Jewish thinking expands, through a typological interpretation, which includes this notion that Melchizedek was a priest who lives forever. Typologically speaking, Melchizedek’s roles as priest and king in Jerusalem fits “the Messianic profile.” See Walton, in the NIV Cultural Commentary on the Bible, p. 458. For a higher critical perspective on the Melchizedek story, at odds with conservative scholars, consult this link. Note that even this higher critical writer sees no need mention any application of tithing, strictly speaking for Christians today, as a necessary conclusion to draw from this text.↩}

^{10. The argument that tithing is a non-superseded command of God relevant for today, since it was established before the Law of Moses was given to the people, is problematic also because there are other practices found in the Law of Moses which were practiced before the actual giving of the Law to the people, such as the practice of Levirate marriage, whereby a brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow. However, few Christians would say that Levirate marriage is still a binding practice for Christians today. Likewise, one should be cautious before immediately assuming that any “pre-Law” aspect of tithing is therefore binding on New Covenant believers. David Croteau has made this argument .↩}

^{11. See Andreas J. Köstenberger and David A. Croteau, Liberty University SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 16 no 2 2006, p 237-260, Scholars Crossing: Reconstructing a Biblical Model of Giving: a Discussion of Reconstructing a Biblical Model of Giving: a Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles. Köstenberger and Croteau argue that the tithe was to be used to support the sacrificial system, which no longer makes sense in the New Covenant, since the sacrificial system was done away with by the work of Christ on the cross, the once and for all sacrifice for sins (This argument is complicated by the fact that Jewish Christians probably continued to participate in the sacrificial system even after Jesus’ ascension, up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE). Köstenberger and Croteau also note that the context as found in 1 Corinthians 9:1-23 suggests that while Paul had the right to receive support from the Corinthians, he gave up that right. If Paul had tithing in mind, it would have introduced a situation quite unlike what is found in the Old Testament, which required tithes to be given to support the priests. Could Paul’s refusal to accept tithes indicate that Paul was abrogating the mandatory aspect of tithing? In other words, would the tithe be longer mandated if a pastor refuses to accept being paid by his flock? (Köstenberger and Croteau, p. 249). Köstenberger and Croteau also suggests that Philippians 4:15-20 also plays a role in Paul’s teaching on giving (Köstenberger and Croteau, p. 256) .}↩

^{12. Andrew Wilson in 1 Corinthians For You: Thrilling You With How Grace Changes Lives, Kindle location 2611, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:1-13 quotes from the Heidelberg Catechism, to show that Christians during the Reformation considered generous giving to the poor to be part of the weekly worship service: “I regularly attend the assembly of God’s people (i) to learn what God’s word teaches, (ii) to participate in the sacraments, (iii) to pray to God publicly, and (iv) to bring Christian offerings for the poor.” Wilson continues on to outline four basic principles of giving: (1) Make giving a priority in your worship, (2) Giving is not just for the rich, it is for everyone, (3) The amount we give should be proportional to our wealth, and (4) Plan your giving. ↩}

^{13. In fairness, in Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views, Hemphill and Eklund do encourage developing a heart for sacrificial, grace-motivated giving. But what is perplexing about their position is that they do not see how the Old Testament concept of an obligatory tithe of 10%, at least with respect to the Levitical tithe, conflicts with Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 8-9 about not giving under compulsion. If some particular percentage of giving is obligatory, then then this is a sign of giving under compulsion, which contradicts Paul’s teachings…..Andreas J. Köstenberger and David A. Croteau in their Scholars Crossing: Reconstructing a Biblical Model of Giving: a Discussion of Reconstructing a Biblical Model of Giving: a Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles, p. 260, note 122, makes this statement with supporting evidence: “It has been argued (not in writing) that if teaching on tithing were replaced with ‘grace giving,’ then churches could not survive financially. This pragmatic argument does not hold for many reasons. But the following data suggest that even where tithing is taught, it is not practiced.…” What is the point of preaching something when the likelihood is that the congregation as a whole will not practice what is being preached? A healthy does of realism is needed here. ↩}

^{14. See the previous Veracity blog post concerning the Levitical teachings on mixtures. Christians today often think of the Levitical prohibition against wearing two different kinds of cloth as something totally weird, dumb, or stupid, but it actually served a purpose in the mind of the ancient Israelite, to remind the worshipper of Yahweh that when they approach God they are entering sacred space. ….. There is something simultaneously puzzling and encouraging about Reggie Kidd’s contribution to the Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views book. In many ways, Kidd’s perspective is not that much different from David Croteau’s post-tithing view. “I think that Köstenberger and Croteau’s ‘grace giving’ principles embody a great deal of wisdom: that giving should be systematic; proportional; sacrificial/generous; intentional; motivated by love, equality, and a desire to bless; cheerful; and voluntary” (Kidd in Croteau, p. 121). If anything Kidd’s perspective suggests that tithing is more of an issue of conscience. The distinction between Kidd’s view and Croteau’s view comes down to how the word “tithing” is defined. Croteau insists that “tithing” be defined not simply as “tenth,” but rather, within the context of how the Hebrew word for “tithe” is used in multiple instances within the Law of Moses. In other words, the tithe under the Old Covenant amounted to about 23% of agricultural or animal husbandry goods. Kidd, on other hand, does not focus as much on exegesis as Croteau does, but rather he rather roughly uses “tithing” and “giving” interchangeably, as his argument is that what is ultimately important about the tithing is the “principle” and not “casuistry.” Nevertheless, Kidd is inconsistent with his use of “tithe” in his essay, sometimes linking the “tithe” to the notion of “tenth” and at other times linking it to giving more generally (Kidd in Croteau, p. 97ff). Frankly, many Christians do exactly the same thing, using the word “tithe” interchangeably with the word “give.” This is understandable, but it can be confusing. Kidd acknowledges that interpreters do not always treat the biblical texts about tithing the same way: “To one interpreter it is clear that tithing is not a command for followers of Jesus under the new covenant, but to the other it is equally clear that tithing is a command for us. Perhaps one writer sees too little here and the other too much. Then again, perhaps both have a point” (Kidd in Croteau, p. 100). As a side note, Kidd relies more on personal anecdotes than the other authors in Perspectives on Tithing. Kidd was an undergrad student at the College of William and Mary, where I work. Kidd’s pastor was Mort Whitmann, an influential bible teacher in the Williamsburg, Virginia community in the 1970s. Kidd acknowledged that the church which Whitmann helped to establish in the 1970s eventually folded, due to not having enough contributors to pay the bills. Frankly, this was partly due to the fact that many in that church were college students who were not in a position to give that much since they were not generating much income yet as college students! The most helpful idea found in Kidd’s essay was the realization that following Christ is all about giving everything we have to follow Christ: “Jesus does indeed call for something more radical than a tenth of our income. He calls for everything” (Kidd in Croteau, p. 105).↩}

^{15. The appendix in Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views is about the history of tithing during the last 2,000 years of the Christian movement. This would probably require a separate blog post to examine this in detail. However, a few highlights are worth noting. The teaching and practice of tithing was indeed mixed during the earliest centuries of the Christian movement. Clement of Rome, near the year 100 CE, urged that Christians give according to God’s “laws,” but he made no specific reference to tithing. Tertullian in the 2nd century wrote that Christians gave voluntarily to support the work of the church, without any reference to an obligatory tithe. A few early church fathers were either full supporters of tithing, or they were mildly supportive of it, including Cyril of Alexandria and Jerome. In more recent history, both Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon rejected tithing as a New Testament requirement. Many early English Baptists rejected tithing as it violated the teachings of Hebrews 7:12, ” For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” The logic of these early Baptists was that God changed the priesthood when Christ came, thereby relegating the tithe as belonging to the Old Covenant and not to the New Covenant. In some cases, a Baptist preacher could be brought up on charges of violating church discipline if they accepted tithes (Croteau, p. 181). Today, various scholars and bible teachers, like Andreas Kostenberger, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms view the tithe as non-mandatory for Christians. ↩}

^{16. I highly recommend several of David Croteau’s other books, from the Urban Legends series, reviewed here on Veracity. Two other brief articles on tithing, such as William Barcley’s pro-tithing essay, and Tom Schreiner’s “post-tithing” essay, are recommended for extra research.↩}

Leave a comment | tags: Andreas Köstenberger, bobby eklund, David Croteau, gary north, ken Hemphill, leviticus, reggie Kidd, tithing | posted in Topics

May 16, 2025

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part One)

By Clarke Morledge

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?”

Leave a comment | tags: bobby eklund, David Croteau, gary north, ken Hemphill, leviticus, reggie Kidd, tithing | posted in Topics

April 18, 2025

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Three

By Clarke Morledge

Which parts of the Law of Moses found in the Book of Leviticus are still binding on the Christian today? Christians from diverse traditions debate this most controversial topic. Jonathan Edwards, perhaps America’s greatest theological mind, had this to say:

“There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as stating of the precise agreement and differences between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.”¹

Leviticus is essentially a law book, detailing the specifics of the Old Covenant, which defined the standards for the ancient Israelite community. But what exactly are the elements from that Old Covenant that have been brought forward into New Covenant? And even if particulars of certain Old Covenant regulations from Leviticus are not binding on New Covenant believers, might there still be lessons in Christian obedience to be learned from them today?

Protestant evangelicals are divided on such issues: Is tithing carried forward under the New Covenant? Does the Bible allow Christians to get tattoos? What about Saturday Sabbath observance? Hebrew Roots Movement enthusiasts bring forward as much from the Old Covenant as they can, even without a standing temple in Jerusalem. Progressive Christians do just the opposite, and jettison as much of the Old Covenant as they can, when certain moral prescriptions are deemed out-of-date. The diversity of such practical applications in interpreting Leviticus can be bewildering.

I came across the teaching of the late Dr. Michael Heiser several years ago, through his Naked Bible Podcast. An expert in Semitic languages and the Old Testament, he did an audio series on the Book of Leviticus, which were transcribed to form the book Notes on Leviticus: From the Naked Bible Podcast. As the author of The Unseen Realm, one of the most groundbreaking books I have read in recent memory, having influence across multiple denominations and Christian traditions, Heiser walks the student of Leviticus through the text in ways that opened up the book for me, with a lens that helps to better understand so many other parts of the Bible. As I have noted at several points, I am not always convinced by Dr. Heiser’s thinking, but he is way far more right than wrong in what he says, and he challenges me to think more deeply on crucial issues concerning the Bible. The tens of thousands of thoughtful Christians who follow Heiser’s YouTube channel surely agree with me.

Heiser’s premise is that Christian readers have often read Leviticus through presuppositions they bring in from their understanding of the New Testament, often confusing things in the process. Alternatively, Heiser proposes that we should learn to read Leviticus from the perspective of an ancient Israelite. What did Leviticus mean to a follower of Yahweh centuries before Jesus came on the scene?

One of the major themes in Leviticus is the concept of atonement. I am publishing this post on Good Friday, which in the Christian calendar commemorates what Jesus accomplished on the cross for us. Many theologians link Good Friday to the concept of atonement, the focus of this final post in this series. But the exact meaning of atonement has stimulated a significant debate among scholars: What does it mean to say that Jesus died for our sins?

On the late Michael Heiser’s Naked Bible Podcast, this Old Testament scholar brings out important highlights, accessible to everyday Christians, who want to have a better grasp on Leviticus, one of the least studied, least understood, and least read books in the Old Testament.

Leave a comment | tags: atonement, Dead Sea Scrolls, divine council, Enoch, genesis 6, Hebrew Roots Movement, inerrancy, leviticus, michael heiser, Mosaic Law, penal substitution, Ronn Johnson, sabbath, sacred space, substitutionary atonement, tattoos, tithing | posted in Topics

	Marcenampm on Ancient Israel’s Women o…
	Clarke Morledge on Was Winston Churchill a Warmon…
	David on Did Abraham Receive the Call t…
	Clarke Morledge on Was Winston Churchill a Warmon…
	The Phenomenal Field… on Is the Kingdom of God (Mystica…
	Clarke Morledge on Christmas in Europe: Ypres and…
	Clarke Morledge on The Real Indiana Jones: Kennet…
	Clarke Morledge on The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzge…
	wingeda9c299e8f2 on Did Abraham Receive the Call t…
	Clarke Morledge on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep…
	Ms J Ireland on Oliver Cromwell’s Crisis
	Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep…
	Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep…
	Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep…
	Shari Meyer on Elisabeth Elliot: A Life, Beco…

Veracity

Tag Archives: leviticus

When “The Chosen” Goes Over the Top: Jesus and the Forces of Death, by Matthew Thiessen. A Review.

Was Jesus “Compassionate” Towards the Leper, or Was He “Angry” With Him?

Rethinking A Tendency Towards Anti-Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible

The Baptism of Jesus and Rituals of Purification

Jesus Deals with Ritual Impurity Regarding Bodily Fluids

Corpses and Ritual Impurity

Impure Spirits as Demons

Jesus’ View of the Sabbath: Observe the Sabbath, Except When Other Principles in Jewish Law Take Precedence

Concluding Thoughts

Notes:

Does the Bible Forbid Christians From Getting Tattoos?

A Fairly Short Look at a Controversial Topic: Do Tattoos and Christians Mix Well Together?

Tattoos Today Are Not Prohibited in Principle, But There Are Still Things to Consider Before You Agree to Get One

Notes:

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part Two)

A Weakness in the “Post-Tithing” View

The Melchizedek Factor and Tithing

Melchizedek in the Book of Hebrews: What Was the Intent of Author?

The Levites Tithing Through the “Loins of Their Ancestor?”

The New Testament Motivation for Giving

A Summary on the Bible’s Teaching on Tithing Practice Today

Notes:

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part One)

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Three

Feel free to share our book…

Follow Veracity

Join the Conversation

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Tag Cloud

We Recommend

Top Posts & Pages

Veracity

Tag Archives: leviticus

When “The Chosen” Goes Over the Top: Jesus and the Forces of Death, by Matthew Thiessen. A Review.

Was Jesus “Compassionate” Towards the Leper, or Was He “Angry” With Him?

Rethinking A Tendency Towards Anti-Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible

The Baptism of Jesus and Rituals of Purification

Jesus Deals with Ritual Impurity Regarding Bodily Fluids

Corpses and Ritual Impurity

Impure Spirits as Demons

Jesus’ View of the Sabbath: Observe the Sabbath, Except When Other Principles in Jewish Law Take Precedence

Concluding Thoughts

Notes:

Share this:

Does the Bible Forbid Christians From Getting Tattoos?

A Fairly Short Look at a Controversial Topic: Do Tattoos and Christians Mix Well Together?

Tattoos Today Are Not Prohibited in Principle, But There Are Still Things to Consider Before You Agree to Get One

Notes:

Share this:

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part Two)

A Weakness in the “Post-Tithing” View

The Melchizedek Factor and Tithing

Melchizedek in the Book of Hebrews: What Was the Intent of Author?

The Levites Tithing Through the “Loins of Their Ancestor?”

The New Testament Motivation for Giving

A Summary on the Bible’s Teaching on Tithing Practice Today

Notes:

Share this:

Are Christians Required to Tithe to Their Local Church? (Part One)

Share this:

Notes on Leviticus: By Michael Heiser. Part Three

Share this:

Feel free to share our book…

Follow Veracity

Join the Conversation

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Tag Cloud

We Recommend

Top Posts & Pages