Morphemics

Christ in the Void

Here is yet another response from the same thread as my previous post. This time, it addresses a comment made by The Dane, who wrote:
Does the normative tithe predate the Law? I'm not sure how. Yes, Abraham tithes once in his life, but it's a bit more complicated than just a tenth of income since he gives not out of what is his, but out of the loot from the conquered kings - and he gives the whole other 90% to those from who it was stolen in the first place. That's a good, well, hundred percent, minus what his men had already eaten and what went as share to his allies. And we've got to note, that this Abrahamic tithe was nowhere in Scripture commanded.

You mention that "several things in the OT are no longer required; however, this is not due to a lifting of requirement as such, but to the nature of the thing abrogated." Of course, everything intrinsic to the Law alone is abrogated - as Christ, while not destroying the Law, certainly fulfilled it. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is only pedagogical at this point in redemptive history. To better understand my view of the Mosaic Covenant, please refer to here.

Although this post should be able to stand on its own, you may want to read the comments leading up to it.

I was only alluding to Abraham as a counterexample to the idea that the tithe is no longer required simply because it was proper to the Law. It was not my intent to justify a theology of the tithe on a story about what Abraham just happened to do one day. Having said this, I do not think it is correct to say that, since the Abrahamic tithe was nowhere in Scripture commanded, it cannot, therefore, inform our theology. This is an argument from silence and, to me, just a bit thin. The fact that no such command is explicitly recorded is no evidence that no such command existed. If we consider the Abrahamic narrative in conjunction with the rest of scriptural teaching on the subject, then it is legitimate to assume either an explicit command or an implicit obligation. The rest of scriptural teaching is not that on the tithe per se, but on the support of ministers and the ministry. Anything from the Mosaic tithe being instituted for the support of the Levites, to Paul's teaching. He writes in I Corinthians 9:13,14, "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." I do not take Paul as saying that Christ commanded something similar to these temple regulations (although he may have); rather, the point is that the regulations for the support of those who minister in the temple constitute the command of Christ concerning those who are ministers of the gospel. If we go back to the institution of Mosaic law, not all of it is a new thing. We know, from the existence of Melchizedec, that there was a priest of God (if not priests) before Moses. The obligation to ministerial support is not limited to the explicit commands concerning the Levites, but is implicit in the existence of ministers of Christ.

There is a deeper point that can be obscured in a theology of tithing. The support of Christ's ministers is more than a practically good thing. This is not just another instantiatian of the principle that workers are worth their wages. Tithing is not just a necessity to keep the ministry intact- God could have used other means. The tithe is an act of worship. In tithing, we acknowledge and worship Christ, who has commissioned both his ministers and their work. Our obligation is to worship Christ when and wherever he is revealed. Such is the case in the existence of the ministry. [I have dealt more with this, at least as it relates to Abraham, here.]

When writing of the "nature of the thing abrogated," I meant more by "nature" than being intrinsic to the Law alone. I see little difference between this and the notion that, since Christ has fulfilled the law, we are free from requirements. Christ did fulfill the law, all of it; yet, I would argue (and am doing so in the comment thread here) that "fulfill" does not equal "make null and void." The Decalogue has been fulfilled in Christ; nonetheless, it still presents a required standard for covenant, even NC, living. Where a command is abrogated upon being fulfilled, it is not because fulfillment causes indiscriminate cessation. Instead, this cessation of ceremonial law is built into its revelatory function. The ceremonial laws, as does all of scripture, reveal Christ. This is true, not only of their existence in history, but, even more of their removal. When the ceremonial laws cease, when the temple veil is ripped in two, it isn't just "good riddance to a contract now we're free from its terms." These laws, as intended, existed not as taskmasters but as promises of grace. The moral law, standing alone, reveals our condemnation. The ceremonial law was a revelation of forgiveness. The sudden vacuum caused by its removal could be traumatic, especially to those who were looking to that law in itself. Instead, the abrogation of the ceremonial law stands as its final and fullest revelation of Christ. "Behold the Lamb of God, the eternal priest who now has taken away our sins once and for all." Before I could be convinced that the tithe is no longer required under the NC, I would have to be shown how its cessation reveals Christ (if at all) more than its continuation does.