Why Do We Do This? (CH2PT2)

Have you ever thought about how the Bible is read? We call it the "Word of God". Christians believe that when they are reading the Bible, God is speaking to them. They believe that the Bible comes from God. When we read the Bible we see God speaking to us with words, audibly, literally, and physically. All this gives the impression that as we are reading the Bible what we are reading are the actual words that God said to write. As if what we are reading is the words God told some men two thousand years ago to put down on paper.

This being the case, it seems that the most intuitive way of reading the Bible would be to start with the assumption that everything written in it directly comes from God. Thus, if the Bible says that squares are circles then we have to believe that God says, "squares are circles". If the Bible says that yodeling is for sissies then we have to believe that God says, "yodeling is for sissies".

There are two things which really fuel this idea. The first is that God does not lie (Heb. 6:8). The second is that God makes clear His will (Rom. 1:25). God would not confuse us by giving us a book which did not mean what it said. If God is all-powerful then surely he has the ability to ensure that the interpretation of the Word be as easy and plain as possible for readers of all time to be able to follow its instructions. All this suggests that when we read the Bible the primary, or preferred, method of interpretation ought to be the literal.

I believe that this is represented by what is called Biblical Literalism, in our day. What the Bible says ought

to be interpreted literally. Now this can be applied differently. Some think that because they read the Bible literally it means that the surface, or face-value meaning of the words is the authoritative interpretation of scripture. Others think that to understand the Bible literally means you have to delve into history to know what the author was actually trying to say. Still others claim that to read the Bible literally we have to harmonize, or in other words, create a hybrid text which actually reveals to us the literal meaning of God's word. There are many ways to be literal about the Bible, and you would think that since it is such an easy method,or such a clear way, to know what God's will is for us today that there would be more consensus on this matter.

In a rather strange way, Biblical literalism forgets the very thing that makes a book... a book. Books are not just written to be carbon copies of a persons mind, nor are they written to be the sole representation of a past event. Books are written to be timeless. Books are written to be immortal. Books are written to be eternal. And when we make the Bible such an absolute authority we shed the Bible of its mystery and depths that can only be plumed through the awareness that God moves in ways unexpected.

When I first came back to the Lord, I didn't want to take anything for granted, and that especially included my Bible. I desired to understand it the way that would contribute the most to my spiritual development and relationship with God. I grew up in an area that is dominated by fundamentalism. Every Christian believes that if the Bible says it then that's how God wants it, and that ends it. There is this all to common belief among Christians that because the Bible says something then that ought to end debate, questions, or inquiry into the matter. This, of course, is merely an extension of the idea that the Bible comes from God, but goes further to say that if something comes from God then its authority is absolute.

I began to study my Bible with this awareness that if it came from God then it ought to have those qualities of authority and literalism that I was seeing everywhere around me. But I found that there were certain things that what most fundamentalist Churches believed were not at all the literal interpretations of Scripture. In fact, it seemed that for the most part literal-orientated Churches were very accommodating to having symbolic or "spiritual" interpretations in those areas that were most self-serving to the Church. What I found were two very big problems. The first is tithing, and the second is hell.

Every church that I know of teaches tithing. Many churches do it with a Jedi mind trick involved, but when pressed on the issue they believe that the Bible teaches tithing and it is a thing that every Christian ought to be doing in service to their God to support the church. I have talked to many pastors on this issue, and have come to this conclusion fairly. This means that according to the dominant view of the Bible proposed by the church I ought to be able to read the Bible literally enough to determine that tithing is what God expects of me. If I read the Bible literally and it does not conform to what most churches say then it would seems that I either need to abandon the Bible all together on the assumption that the only appropriate interpretation is the literal, and hence Christianity, or that I need to reconsider what the appropriate method of interpretation actually is.

The word "tithe" is only mentioned twice in the New Testament. It's not in the Epistles, which are dated earlier. The two times it is mentioned come from the same story. Matthew and Luke both tell the story which means that the New Testament only, really, has one mention of the word tithe, and here it is:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law : justice and mercy and faithfulness ; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others" (Mat. 23:23).

Now in reading the Bible literally it is important to not dismiss this verse simply because there is only one mention of it. Jesus is clearly advocating tithing, which means that we should assume God is advocating tithing. But to simply single out this one aspect of this verse would be to pick and choose what can be literally seen in this verse. Another thing which is clearly in this verse is that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, or he is speaking about the Pharisees. The other thing to notice is that Jesus is speaking about past events. He is not saying that the Pharisees should tithe in the future, he is saying that in the past Pharisees should HAVE tithed without neglecting justice.

This does not negate the force of what Jesus is saying about tithe. But it does give us some considerations that need to be addressed. First, Jesus is not giving a direction to his disciples as to how he wants them to behave. In fact, when it comes to giving the only thing Jesus directs them to is the widows "mite" (Mark 12:43). Jesus could have taught them about tithe at that moment, but he didn't.

The reality is that the New Testament church did not practice tithing. Jesus' words are hardly indicative of any normative quality in the lives of the believers, and Christ only offers those words as a critique of a group of people that existed outside the influence of those who followed Him. If we are going to take Jesus' words concerning the Pharisees as normative for Christians today then we might as well take seriously his call for the "Rich Young Ruler" to sell all he owns so that he could follow Jesus (Mark 10:21).

Plus, we do have many teachings in the Epistles as it concerns generosity, giving, and supporting the church that makes no mention of tithing (1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8-9). Paul tells believers to decide in their hearts what to give. He tells believers that giving should not be a burden for the poor. The rich should give more, and the poor should not be expected to give. Paul's teaching on giving is vastly different then the teaching on tithing. Paul had plenty of chances to call his teaching on generosity an extension of tithing, but he did not.

As far as Paul was concerned tithing was simply a part of the Law which was over, finished, ended (Gal. 3:25). Interestingly enough, if we are going to take a literal position on tithing then we would have to apply the same understanding to tithing as it was represented in the Bible. Clearly, tithing has nothing to do with the New Testament. So if Christians are expected to tithe based on the literalness of the Bible then we should see what the Bible literally says:

" 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD." - Leviticus 27:30

What was the tithe? And what wasn't it? The tithe was not income based. In a market economy the tithe is almost entirely senseless. The tithe only applied to landowners. And it only applied to farmers and herdsmen. Whatever the land produced either in produce, or animals was considered as tithe-worthy. This is the literal meaning of tithe. It was not a universal, all encompassing, command on the people of Israel. In today's society it would be business owners who paid the tithe, but that is only conjecture.

What the Bible tells me about tithe almost turns the whole enterprise of the church on its head. A Church which both accepts tithes and promotes Biblical literalism is making such an affront to border on blasphemy, but we do not have to go that far. But one word definitely seems applicable. Hypocrite.

Tithing is one thing that no literalist can actually take literally, it simply does not seem possible, but it is very likely that most literalists believe and practice tithing. Thus, if the application of symbolic or "spiritual" meaning in the Bible is to be limited as much as possible it seems that this dictum is not followed at all when it comes to tithing. Why not simply follow, preach, and teach what Paul says in the Corinthian epistles? Why make it more confusing? More complex? My desire for simplicity was helping me see how easy the first believers tried to make things on the early church. But I still needed to know how to find direction two thousand years later.

It seemed that Biblical literalism had a strike against it.