The Tithe: A Reformed Baptist Reconstructionist Understanding

Introduction

In most churches today, tithing is taught as a flat 10% of either gross or net income to the local church, no questions asked. The practice is often assumed and based in tradition rather than carefully examined or exegeted. A closer look at Scripture reveals a more complex and covenantally rich picture.

I hope to offer a calm, exegetically focused reexamination of the tithe from a Reconstructionist and distinctly Reformed Baptist perspective. The goal is not to argue against giving, but to understand the tithe in its original context so we can better discern what aspects of it carry forward under the New Covenant.

As Christians committed to biblical authority, we cannot afford to be vague or sentimental about financial obedience. The tithe, properly understood, was a covenantal structure embedded within the Mosaic economy; a structure that shaped worship, civil administration, and community welfare. Understanding how it functioned, and how it is fulfilled in Christ, gives us clarity and freedom as we seek to honor God with our money.

The Structure of the Mosaic Tithe

The tithe under the Mosaic Covenant was not a singular offering. It was a structured system consisting of multiple tithes over a repeating seven-year cycle. These tithes supported Levitical ministry, covenantal celebration, and care for the poor.

A. Three-Year Tithe Cycle

Every Israelite household was required to tithe annually from their agricultural increase. But what that tithe supported depended on where they were in the cycle.

Year 1:

10% to the Levites (Numbers 18:21–24), and

10% for the household to consume in worship at the festivals (Deuteronomy 14:22–27)

Year 2:

10% to the Levites, and

10% for the household to consume in worship at the festivals

Year 3:

10% to the Levites, and

10% for the local poor—Levites, aliens, widows, and orphans (Deuteronomy 14:28–29; 26:12–13)

This three-year structure then repeated once and the seventh year was a sabbath for the land, during which no tithe was collected (Leviticus 25:1–7).

B. Clarifying the Components

The Levitical Tithe

This tithe supported those who served in the tabernacle and functioned as teachers, judges, and administrators among the people. The Levites had no land inheritance and relied entirely on the tithe for their provision (Deuteronomy 12:12; Numbers 18:21). It was not a symbolic offering. It was a practical and necessary provision for a functioning covenant society.

The Festival Tithe

In years 1, 2, 4, and 5, the second tenth was used by each household to celebrate before the Lord at the central sanctuary. They were permitted to convert their goods into silver if they lived too far from the temple and purchase food and drink, including wine and strong drink, “whatever your heart desires,” for a joyful covenantal meal in God’s presence (Deuteronomy 14:26).

The Poor Tithe

In the third and sixth year, that second tenth did not go to Jerusalem. It was stored in the towns and distributed to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless, and the widow. This was a direct provision for those in need, rooted in local responsibility and covenantal justice.

C. Summary

Rather than a single 10% out of their paychecks, the Mosaic tithe system required 20% of their agricultural increase annually; 10% to the Levites every year, and a second 10% alternating between the household’s festival worship and provision for the local poor:

Years 1 & 2: Levitical Tithe + Festival Tithe

Year 3: Levitical Tithe + Poor Tithe

Cycle repeats

Year 7: Sabbath year—no tithe collected

This structure makes it clear that tithing in ancient Israel was not a vague gesture. It was a theocratic infrastructure, deeply tied to land inheritance, covenant worship, and community justice. Any serious attempt to apply or reinterpret the tithe today must begin by acknowledging what it actually was: an agrarian tax that funded the church, the state, welfare for the poor, and community.

What Constitutes "Increase"?

Under the Old Covenant, tithing applied specifically to agricultural and herding increase (grain, oil, wine, and livestock) not to every form of wealth, but only the kind of wealth you could eat or drink. These were the yield of the land God had given to Israel. There is no command to give to God 10% of all the gold that was mined, or all the fabric that was woven. Additionally, the tithe was taken from net gain, not from gross production. A farmer did not tithe based on his total harvest, but on what remained after the poor took the corners, the tares were removed, the diseased portions discarded, the ox who trod on the grain got his share, threshing and winnowing, setting some seed aside for the following year, and laborers were paid. The tithe came from increase, not assumption, and only after operating costs.

We would do well to remember this in our modern context. Today, believers are often encouraged to tithe from their gross paycheck: the full pre-tax, pre-deduction amount listed on a W-2. But this modern "gross" figure includes amounts the individual never truly receives and often never even sees. Withholdings for income tax, payroll tax, health insurance, and retirement contributions may significantly reduce the funds actually available.

Beyond that, we live in a world with recurring, non-optional obligations that reflect a very different economic structure than ancient Israel. The Israelite farmer did not have a mortgage. He did not pay property tax to a secular government. He did not pay for electricity, water, insurance, internet access, or vehicle maintenance. The obligations he did bear, like providing for his family, caring for his land, or settling debts, were all accounted for before the tithe was calculated. Their operating costs came out pre-harvest; ours come out post-paycheck.

Here is the principle: God does not expect us to give from money we do not truly have. In other words, increase is not defined by your paycheck itself, but by what remains after discharging obligations that God Himself has already assigned. So too, Christians should give from what they have actually received, not from what was briefly visible in a gross figure or reduced by state withholding. This is not an excuse for stinginess. It is a call to stewardship with your eyes wide open, reassessing what truly constitutes increase through the lens of modern economic realities.

If we aim to honor God with our wealth, we must begin by accurately identifying what our wealth actually is. That requires wisdom, not just arithmetic. It means distinguishing between what is truly ours to give and what has already been spoken for in the ordinary course of faithfulness.

The First Fruits Offering: Symbol, Practice, and Misapplication

Having seen what Scripture defines as “increase,” it is important to distinguish between the tithe and the related, but distinct, category of first fruits. These offerings are often blended together in modern teaching, yet under the Mosaic law they functioned differently in timing, proportion, and purpose.

The Biblical Command

Israel was commanded to bring the first and best portion of each harvest to the priest as an act of thanksgiving and dedication (Exodus 23:19; Leviticus 23:9–14; Deuteronomy 26:1–11). This occurred before the full harvest was completed, particularly in connection with the wave sheaf offering during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Weeks. Unlike the tithe, first fruits were not a fixed tenth but a token portion from the earliest yield, consecrated to God in recognition that the entire harvest was His provision.

The Actual Practice

In practice, first fruits were offered from the first ripe grain, grapes, figs, olives, or other produce in their raw state. They were not given from every form of income, nor were they calculated from wages or livestock unless otherwise specified in the Law. The defining feature was priority: this portion was brought as soon as the crop began to ripen, before the rest of the harvest was gathered. Its significance lay in both timing and symbolism, not in reaching a precise percentage.

The Theological Significance

Presenting the first sheaf before any of the harvest was eaten or stored was an embodied confession: the whole yield belonged to Yahweh. This first portion represented the entire harvest as a type of federal head. Just as in Adam, the first man, humanity fell into sin and death (Romans 5:12–19), and just as in Christ, the firstborn from the dead, all His people share in resurrection life (1 Corinthians 15:20–23), so the first fruits offering functioned as a representative portion that stood for the whole. By dedicating the head of the harvest to God, the worshiper declared that the entire harvest was under His lordship.

Why “Gross Income Tithing” Doesn’t Follow

Modern appeals to first fruits as a mandate for tithing on gross income confuse this symbolic offering with the tithe itself. The two were separate commands under the Law, each with its own logic. First fruits were a small, representative portion given at the start of the harvest, not a mathematically determined tenth of total yield. If anything, the principle affirms the priority of giving—honoring God before self-consumption—rather than prescribing how to calculate a tithe. The theological weight lies in acknowledging God’s ownership of the whole through a representative portion, not in setting a tithe base for the New Covenant believer.

Sacrificing Gains, not Subsistence

A faithful Israelite at the end of harvest would set aside his tithe from the abundance of his fields. He did not replant the entire harvest to maximize future gains and accelerate his household’s prosperity, nor did he give away the entire harvest. Instead, he gave from the portion that could have been replanted. The tithe did not deprive him of what he needed to live. It merely tempered the pace of his wealth accumulation.

This is the pattern throughout the Mosaic tithe. A man with increase gave a portion of that increase, 20% in most years, consisting of the Levitical and Festival tithe, or the Levitical and Poor tithe every third year. This giving was not meant to reduce his household to poverty. His family remained fed. His debts remained paid. His household was sustained. The tithe reduced his momentum, helping him to reorient from relying on his own supposed ability to grow his wealth, and trust in the God who brought the increase.

The same principle applied to livestock. Leviticus 27:32 instructs that "every tenth animal that passes under the rod" is to be holy to the Lord. This was just the old animals, nor was it restricted only to newborns. Rather, it was a selection of every tenth viable animal as the herd was counted. In most cases, these would end up being mostly the newer additions to the herd from the past year. It was a tithe of growth, not survival stock.

This point has real significance for Christians considering what generosity might look like today. We are not called to give to the detriment of our households, but we are also not called to optimize every dollar for maximum personal gain either. Sacrificial giving is not about giving away what you need to live (see the Widow's Mite below), it is about giving from what you could have otherwise used to grow.

The tithe, then, is a signal. It signals contentment. It signals restraint. It reminds us that while we could build bigger barns, we choose instead to build the Kingdom. Unbelievers may choose to pursue pure growth for growth's sake and for a time overtake us in some metrics, but without sabbath rest they will exhaust themselves and the land, and without being properly oriented to God, they speed only toward their own destruction.

Having considered the nature of increase under the Old Covenant, we must now ask how the tithe fits within the broader framework of biblical law.

The Tithe and the Threefold Division of the Law

Before addressing whether the tithe remains binding in the New Covenant, it is worth considering how the tithe fits within the classic Reformed framework of the moral, civil, and ceremonial divisions of the law. This framework, while not explicit in Scripture, has long been a useful tool for understanding the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.

The moral law is understood to be perpetual, rooted in the character of God, and binding on all people in all times. The civil law applied to Israel’s national governance and judicial order, and the ceremonial law governed temple worship, sacrifices, and ritual purity; laws that pointed forward to Christ and were fulfilled in Him.

The tithe system in the Mosaic economy seems to touch all three categories. All three served a moral function by expressing gratitude to God and honoring Him with one’s increase. The Levitical tithe and the Poor tithe had a civil dimension, funding the Levites who carried out judicial, instructional, and administrative duties in Israel and providing for community welfare. Both the Levitical and Festival tithes played a ceremonial role by supporting temple service and festival worship.

This overlap complicates any attempt to categorize the tithes neatly to say that one is binding while the others are not. Some Reformed theologians, especially those in the Presbyterian tradition, see the moral principle of the Levitical tithe as continuing under the New Covenant. They argue that while the civil and ceremonial structures have passed away, the moral obligation to give a tenth remains. Others, particularly those in the Reformed Baptist tradition (but also including John Calvin and Francis Schaeffer), affirm the enduring relevance of the moral law but view the specific 10% requirement of the tithe as bound up with the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic covenant, and thus fulfilled and transformed in Christ.

Both traditions agree that the New Testament calls for generous, intentional, and sacrificial giving. The question is whether that obligation includes a binding percentage. The question of whether the tithe remains in force or has been fulfilled will be the focus of the next section.

Why the Tithe Is No Longer Binding: A Reformed Baptist Distinctive

Whether the tithe remains binding today depends largely on how one understands the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. From a Reformed Baptist perspective (one that affirms the New Covenant as truly new in substance, not merely in administration) the Mosaic tithe system has been fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding.

The tithe, under the Mosaic economy, was tied to a particular covenantal order: a priesthood, a land inheritance, and a theocratic national structure. These were not merely ceremonial add-ons but integral to the tithe’s purpose. Christ, as our High Priest and the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, has brought that order to its intended conclusion. Hebrews 7:12 is clear: when the priesthood changes, the law necessarily changes with it. The Levitical priesthood has ended, and so too has the tithe that sustained it.

Some point to Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 as proof that the tithe predates the Mosaic Law and should remain in effect. However, that event was a singular, voluntary gift from the spoils of war, not a standing rule or model of regular giving. The New Testament references to this moment (especially in Hebrews 7) treat it typologically, not prescriptively. Abraham’s act highlights the superiority of Melchizedek, and therefore Christ, not necessarily the timeless obligation of a tenth.

Presbyterians often arrive at a different conclusion. Their covenant theology emphasizes a strong continuity between the Old and New Covenants. In their view, the Covenant of Grace runs through the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants as one unified covenantal structure, differing only in administration. Because of this, they see many Old Testament institutions like the tithe as carrying ongoing normative weight unless explicitly abrogated. The tithe, in this framework, is seen not only as Mosaic but as a principle evident in patriarchal practice, formalized under Moses, and assumed by Jesus in His earthly ministry. They may also appeal to Matthew 23:23, where Jesus commends tithing while condemning neglect of the weightier matters of the law. For those with a Presbyterian framework, these texts reinforce the sense that the tithe continues under the moral law.

By contrast, a Reformed Baptist approach recognizes that the typological structures of the Mosaic Covenant, including the tithe, were always intended to point forward to Christ and have now been fulfilled in Him. The New Covenant is not merely a redemptive retooling of the Old; it is something categorically new, grounded in better promises and administered by a better priesthood. In that sense, the tithe, like the priesthood it supported, has served its purpose and passed away.

This does not, however, diminish our duty to give. The New Testament calls believers to generosity, to support the church, and to care for the poor. It just does so without imposing a legal percentage. We give freely, proportionally, and joyfully; not under compulsion, but as those living under a better covenant with better promises.

Giving in the New Covenant

If the tithe is no longer binding, what replaces it? Scripture does not leave us without guidance here. While the New Testament never reaffirms the Mosaic tithe as a requirement for the church, it repeatedly calls believers to give. The form has changed, but the principle of provision remains.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, makes the matter plain: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). Giving is to be voluntary, intentional, and joyful. The amount given flows not from compulsion, but from gratitude and commitment to Christ’s kingdom.

Yet this freedom does not negate responsibility. In 1 Corinthians 9:14, Paul says, "The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Similarly, Galatians 6:6 instructs that “the one who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.” These passages clearly affirm the duty to financially support gospel ministry.

New Covenant giving is also directed toward the needs of others. Paul exhorts the churches to care for the poor, especially among the household of faith (Galatians 2:10; Romans 12:13). This includes organized support for widows (1 Timothy 5), relief collections for saints in need (2 Corinthians 8–9), and generosity as a defining trait of Christian character.

While no fixed percentage is required, the New Testament assumes that believers will give, and give significantly. This is not a license for stinginess. It is an invitation to maturity. We do not need a national theocracy or a Levitical order to motivate us. We have Christ, His Spirit, and the mission of the church.

In the absence of a legal tithe, our question should not be, “How much must I give?” but rather, “How can I steward my resources to advance the kingdom?” The New Covenant standard is not less than 10%. It is more demanding, precisely because it flows from the heart. Grace does not lower the bar; it raises it, and it enables us to meet it joyfully.

What About Malachi?

If the tithe has been fulfilled in Christ and replaced by New Covenant giving, what are we to do with the strong words in Malachi 3:8–10? “Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions.” Gary North cited this passage often.

We must begin by reading the passage in context. Malachi was written to post-exilic Israel. The temple had been rebuilt, the priesthood was reinstituted, and yet the people had already begun neglecting their covenant responsibilities. Their sacrifices were blemished, their worship was half-hearted, and their tithes were withheld, leaving the Levites under-resourced, and temple service in disrepair.

Malachi’s charge is that withholding the tithe which is required under the Mosaic covenant was covenantal unfaithfulness. God had tied Israel’s agricultural blessing to their obedience (Deuteronomy 28). The call to “bring the full tithe into the storehouse” was a call for Israel to uphold their covenant duties under the law given through Moses.

Now, if one insists on applying Malachi 3 directly to New Covenant believers, then consistency demands applying the full tithe structure, not just a flat 10% to the local church.

That would mean:

• A 10% Levitical tithe supporting those doing the work of ministry (and presumably local judges).

  
  

• A 10% festival tithe used for worship, feasting, and rejoicing before the Lord.

  
  

• A 10% poor tithe every third year, directed to the marginalized in one’s community.

To selectively invoke Malachi as a mandate for 10% giving while ignoring the broader tithe system it references is to miss the covenantal and historical context of the passage.

That does not mean we discard Malachi. The passage still teaches us something vital: God cares how His people give, He sees when they withhold, and He honors cheerful, covenantal generosity. To apply the passage rightly, we must first understand to whom it was written, under what covenant, and for what purpose.

As New Covenant believers, we are not under the Mosaic economy. We are under grace; an economy of Spirit-filled generosity, not temple-bound taxation. We do still rob God by failing to give when we are able, and we dishonor Him when we fail to give from the heart. That is the deeper warning of Malachi for the church today. Not a call to give 20%, but a reminder of the holiness of God and the goodness of His statutes.

The Widow’s Mite Reconsidered

No discussion of giving would be complete without addressing one of the other most frequently cited passages on sacrificial generosity: the story of the widow’s mite in Luke 21:1–4. Jesus observes a poor widow placing two small copper coins into the temple treasury and remarks, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.” This moment is often presented as a commendation of self-denial in giving, used to argue that Christians should give sacrificially, even to the point of personal harm.

But the surrounding context demands a more cautious reading.

Just prior, in Luke 20:46–47, Jesus issues a sharp rebuke of the scribes, who “devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers.” Immediately after His comment about the widow, Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple itself. These narrative brackets place the widow’s offering between two scenes of judgment: one against corrupt religious leaders and the other against the corrupted temple institution.

Taken together, these passages suggest Jesus is not praising the widow’s destitution, nor affirming the legitimacy of the temple system that demanded it. Rather, He is highlighting a tragic contrast: the most vulnerable giving all she had to a system on the verge of collapse, manipulated by leaders who enriched themselves while devouring the poor.

Luke tells us she “put in all she had to live on.” This is not simply a generous gesture, it is likely her last act. She walks away from the temple with nothing. She is not praised, comforted, or provided for. She is a living example of the very injustice Jesus had just condemned. In that moment, she is not merely generous; she is devoured.

It is not unlike the modern scene where a prosperity preacher coaxes a desperate congregant into sowing their last “thousand-dollar seed,” promising a breakthrough that will never come. The widow’s mite warns us about institutional failure: religious systems that claim the name of God while preying on the vulnerable.

This does not diminish her faith, nor deny the sincerity of her gift, but it does warn against misapplying her example. Christ’s kingdom calls for cheerful, thoughtful, and wise generosity, not coerced or manipulated giving to unfaithful structures.

The widow’s story, like Malachi’s prophecy, must be read within its covenantal and historical context. It serves not as a model of required sacrificial poverty, but as a warning against exploitative religious systems and as a reminder of the kind of justice and stewardship Christ’s kingdom demands.

Wisdom and Liberty in Giving

If we affirm that the Old Covenant tithe has been fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding, we are left with a freedom that can be both liberating and daunting. The removal of a fixed percentage does not remove the need for thoughtful giving, rather, it opens the door to financial stewardship that is both principled and prudential.

The New Testament never prescribes a percentage, but it gives us clear direction: give regularly (1 Corinthians 16:2), give generously (2 Corinthians 9:6), give cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:7), and give with eternity in view (Matthew 6:19–21). The question is not how much we owe, but how faithfully we steward what God has given us.

For some, that may mean giving less than 10% for a time, particularly if they are under heavy burdens, managing obligations of care, or digging out from financial hardship. For others, it may mean giving far more than 10%, with intentionality and joy, because God has granted them the means and the desire to do so.

There is wisdom in building giving into one’s regular financial rhythms. Christians should plan to give just as they plan to save or grow, but they should do so in light of real increase; not merely applying formulas, but examining their heart, their household, and their opportunities for kingdom impact. One man may find that 7% of his take home pay stretches him in faithfulness; another may realize that 25% comes easily and joyfully.

This is not relativism, or showing partiality to the poor, it is liberty under grace. Grace does not free us from the call to give, it frees us from the condemnation of getting it wrong while also equipping us to get it right.

Tithing may not be required, but generosity certainly is. In Christ, we are freed not from giving, but for giving. So tithe according to your conviction, do not rob God, and make sure to give from your true increase so that you and your household are not devoured. Let your generosity be a reflection of both wise stewardship and grace under Christ.