2d Cmd, Tithe and Sacrilege

[Christusregnat]

In light of some recent threads dealing with the tithe, I thought it might be of interest that the Westminster Larger Catechism defines a refusal to tithe as sacrilege, and a violation of the Second Commandment:

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are... simony; sacrilege;[549] all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.


[549] Romans 2:22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Malachi 3:8. Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

In light of some recent threads dealing with the tithe, I thought it might be of interest that the Westminster Larger Catechism defines a refusal to tithe as sacrilege, and a violation of the Second Commandment:

The text says nothing about the "tithe." Obviously the proof is provided to establish what sacrilege is, i.e., robbing God of that which is His due; it is not appended for the purpose of showing that tithes and offerings are His due under the New Testament.

 

[Christusregnat]

In light of some recent threads dealing with the tithe, I thought it might be of interest that the Westminster Larger Catechism defines a refusal to tithe as sacrilege, and a violation of the Second Commandment:

The text says nothing about the "tithe." Obviously the proof is provided to establish what sacrilege is, i.e., robbing God of that which is His due; it is not appended for the purpose of showing that tithes and offerings are His due under the New Testament.

So in a more generic sense, you do not believe that the prooftexts cited are to act as a rule of understanding what is meant? Or do you believe that they are such a rule, but that other parts of the Catechism indicate that the tithe specifically cited in this answer is not obligatory?

Why did they cite the portion about tithing if it was not meant to elucidate?

 

[MW]

Why did they cite the portion about tithing if it was not meant to elucidate?

It is a proof text, not a text for elucidation. Proof texts only serve the purpose of establishing the biblical basis for the proposition. The texts reflect a history of interpretative discussion within a theological movement. One is not at liberty to add new propositions to the confession determined by one's own understanding of the texts appended.

 

[Christusregnat]

Why did they cite the portion about tithing if it was not meant to elucidate?

It is a proof text, not a text for elucidation. Proof texts only serve the purpose of establishing the biblical basis for the proposition. The texts reflect a history of interpretative discussion within a theological movement. One is not at liberty to add new propositions to the confession determined by one's own understanding of the texts appended.

So, since the text clearly teaches tithing, how would you answer the charge that you may have determined the meaning by your own understanding of the text?

 

[MW]

So, since the text clearly teaches tithing, how would you answer the charge that you may have determined the meaning by your own understanding of the text?

I have done nothing more than state what the confession says. The confession says "sacrilege." The proof text proves sacrilege is a sin. That is all the proof text can prove. The proof text cannot prove a proposition which is not in the confession. You have added a proposition to the confession -- "failure to tithe is sacrilege" -- and turned to your understanding of the proof text to establish your addition to the confession.

 

[Christusregnat]

So, since the text clearly teaches tithing, how would you answer the charge that you may have determined the meaning by your own understanding of the text?

I have done nothing more than state what the confession says. The confession says "sacrilege." The proof text proves sacrilege is a sin. That is all the proof text can prove. The proof text cannot prove a proposition which is not in the confession. You have added a proposition to the confession -- "failure to tithe is sacrilege" -- and turned to your understanding of the proof text to establish your addition to the confession.

Noah Webster tells us that sacrilege is:

SAC'RILEGE, n. [L. sacrilegium; sacer, sacred, and lego, to take or steal.]

The crime of violating or profaning sacred things; or the alienating to laymen or to common purposes what has been appropriated or consecrated to religious persons or uses.

Malachi illustrates one instance of stealing something that belongs to God, Romans 2 illustrates another instance. I don't think I'm adding anything to the Catechism.

Thank you for your responses.

 

[MW]

Malachi illustrates one instance of stealing something that belongs to God, Romans 2 illustrates another instance. I don't think I'm adding anything to the Catechism.

Yes, Malachi has illustrated an instance of stealing what belongs to God, not the Catechism; by your own words you admit to adding this to the Catechism out of Malachi.

 

[Christusregnat]

Malachi illustrates one instance of stealing something that belongs to God, Romans 2 illustrates another instance. I don't think I'm adding anything to the Catechism.

Yes, Malachi has illustrated an instance of stealing what belongs to God, not the Catechism; by your own words you admit to adding this to the Catechism out of Malachi.

I admit no such thing. If the divines wanted to merely condemn robbing God Romans 2 and the first portion of the text would have been sufficient. They didn't, but they included the portion of the text to illustrate sacrilege.

In the Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 5 of 6, the following comments are made on the Malachi passage:

and prove me now herewith...God offers himself to the tryall, whereby it shall soon be seen that cause leastly they complained of God, and that truly the fault will be found in themselves, and their sacriledge.

Again, the Westminster Annotations considered robbing God of His tithes as sacriledge. They go on in discussing God's promise to open up the windows of heaven:

Whether, if ye obey my commandments, I will fail in my promises, A text much pressing for Tythes, and the maintenance of the ministery

Turretin likewise argues that the tithe laws are applicable to the Christian ministry, and cites Paul's affirmation in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 to the point:

The fifth, from the divinely instituted order, in the Old as well as in the New Testament: "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? They which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"

Turretin likewise cites the threatenings of Malachi 3 in his fifth head, that ministers must be paid, just as Old Covenant priests, due to the threatened curses (Inst. Vol. 3, p.270). In the third head, he recognizes the duty to pay the Christian minister from Numbers 18:8-12, albeit not delivered via the "special material from which and the manner in which the pay was given", but notes the analogy in the 1 Cor. 9 passage.

Not to wax prolix, but Calvin likewise refers to refusing to pay tithes as sacrilege.

It does not seem very rational for the divines to cite a passage which they did not agree with as a New Testament ordinance. Further, as you can see, the Westminster Annotations believed the tithe to be a gospel ordinance, as did Turretin, although freed from the ceremonial trappings.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[MW]

It does not seem very rational for the divines to cite a passage which they did not agree with as a New Testament ordinance. Further, as you can see, the Westminster Annotations believed the tithe to be a gospel ordinance, as did Turretin, although freed from the ceremonial trappings.

Are you now attempting to make an historical argument beyond the wording of the catechism? This is different again.

First, the "Westminster" Annotations on the minor prophets was not written by a Westminster divine but by Bishop Richardson, according to Neal's Puritans, 3:505. Secondly, what is the nature of the "tithe" which the annotation notes? There is no indication whether it is understood as an ecclesiastical or civil ordinance; or whether it is understood literally to be a tithe (as in a tenth) or by general equity is understood to teach the duty of minister's maintenance (which was also called a tithe but did not specify a percentage). You have simply quoted an historical statement without taking into account the numerous ways in which terms might be used at that period. This is quite unhistorical.

Secondly, please consult William Gouge's exposition on Hebrews 7, as I advised in the other thread, and you will soon become aware of the Puritan attitude to tithes, and avoid creating a needless controversy over matters of the law. Gouge was a father of the English Puritans and a prominent member of the Assembly. He specifically states, "There be some reasons rendered about the Levites receiving tenths which are proper to the Jews" (Hebrews, 2:93). He concludes by stating that the general equity of the law of tenths requires the sufficient maintenance of ministers, that one tenth is the fittest proportion, and that where such a proportion is required by civil law it is obliging. Otherwise it does not carry the force of a law.

Thirdly, Turretin's point is that "salary is due ministers of the church." Malachi 3:8, 10, 12, is cited along with other references which have nothing to do with tenths. Obviously the purpose of adducing it is simply to show the moral offence in withholding the minister's support, not in prescribing a specific portion which each individual Chrisitan is obliged to pay. Section 14 specifically ignores any reference to a tenth when it comes to describe the maintenance of the ministry by voluntary giving; when it takes up the question of magistratical provision then it allows a "tithe" as a civil ordinance.

All this of course is quite beside the point because the Catechism does not say that a failure to pay tithes is sacrilege; this is a proposition you are attempting to insert into the Catechism.