Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?

Real Law

"If a man gives for the benefit of the Church, it is considered a voluntary offering. Yet the law requires or enjoins a consecration of the overplus, after reserving for himself and family to carry on his business."

VS.

True Law of Tithing History

A tithe in Hebrew means a tenth. Tithing in the Hebrew Scriptures was actually quite a light burden. (Deut. 14:23-29.). Its main beneficiary aside from yourself was widows and orphans. You enjoyed eating the tithe in years 1 and 2 at Jerusalem in a festival hosted by the Levite priests. In year 3, it was collected in your home town by Levite priests, and distributed to the poor, widows, orphans, sojourners (Gentiles living in Israel) and the Levite priests.

However, tradition added to it, making it unduly burdensome. Some interpretations within Judaism beginning in 1200 A.D. twisted Scripture to make it 20%. It was no longer only ten percent belonged to poor widows and orphans and Levite priests every third year, and otherwise the tither delivered to the Levites to have them provide a festival to tithers. Rather, in the 1200s another ten percent tithe now belonged to the rabbis. The clear meaning of a tenth was lost. It was made over-bearing by the traditions of men.

Christian tradition by that point had gone even farther. Unlike the Jews as of the 1200s, the Christians since Charlemagne in the 8th Century had subtracted to whom God said the tithe was directed other than the tither's festival at Jerusalem (i.e., widows and orphans). Christian tradition became so modified by the 1200s that that God's main social purpose behind the tithe was eliminated altogether. Widows and orphans have 0% right to a tithe in the Christian version. Even the Jewish tradition of the tithe from 1200 AD forward strongly protected the right of widows and orphans to the tithe. The Christian practice clearly contradicts Scripture. (Deut. 14:23-29.)

The True Tithe 

Jew v Gentile Distinction

Acts 15:13-29 says Gentiles Christians are not bound to the Law of Circumcision. However Acts 21:21-26 says the apostles taught Jewish Christians are still bound to obey the Law and its traditions, including circumcision. If you treat this as a principle, Jewish Christians certainly must pay the tithe. It is a different question regarding non-Jewish Christians. Elsewhere we establish that Gentiles are likely not at all subject to the tithe because they were one of the main beneficial recipients of the tithe in year. If there is an exception, it would be a Gentile who owned land and had crops and animals. Id.

Regardless, a Gentile with land and animals can agree to abide by the tithe if he or she believes the command applies to himself / herself. But a Gentile who is paying a tenth of income from wages to ministers / clergy is doing so where the Law given Moses never commands any such action upon him.

So what is a tithe according to the Bible?

Tithe Solely Upon Farm Food Production, Not Wages or Other Foods

The true tithe of Scripture is easy: you bring 10% of your food production (crop-produce and animals that exceed 9 animals) in a three year cycle. (Leviticus 27:30 "tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or the fruit of the trees"; Leviticus 27:32 , "tithe of the heard and the flocks [is] every tenth animal that passes under the rod," which meant an owner of 9 or less animals had no animal-tithe.) There was no tithe on wages, loan-interest income, monetary gains, fish caught in the sea, or sale of minerals such as copper, silver, gold, etc.

However, with no basis at all, modern standard evangelical doctrine is that the tithe in the Law is on all sources of income, even wages.

How do they defend this given what the true tithe said?

The standard evangelical sermon implies the only reason that wages are not mentioned in the Bible as subject to a tithe is because Israel was an "agricultural society." You are supposed to then infer there were no wage earners and no money lender profits going on, etc. Hence, these sermons want you to assume that is why there is no mention of a tithe on wages or loan profits, etc.

As a result, the evangelical church teaches that the tithe had a broader implied principle than the Law actually supports -- supposedly a tithe on sources of income. However, as we saw above, the Law imposed a tithe only possibly on crops and animals. Thus, these sermons want us to believe wages came about at a later era, and that a tithe on crops and animals simply naturally extends do all sources of income, including on wages. 

But the implied premise of such sermons is utterly false. For the Law given Moses mentions there were people making wages under the Law and catching fish to eat and digging up minerals out of the ground who obviously used it as gain, etc. None of these sources of income were subject to a tithe. This is no oversight or error in the Law. Moses is aware of people earning wages and catching fish and digging up copper and gold, etc.

For example, the same Mosaic Law setting up the tithe on only food talks of making sure you pay your workers their wage the same day they did the labor. (Deut. 24:14-15.) In fact, there are 67 Bible verses dealing with wages in the Bible. In the Abrahamic age before the Law, there were wages, as Laban asked Jacob what would be his "wages." (Gen. 29:15.) Laban later insists to Jacob (later known as Israel) "name me your wages." (Gen. 30:28.) The Mosaic Law also had God prohibit you to use "wages" earned renting out your dog or earned by a prostitute to be given as a votive (voluntary) offering at the Temple.  (Deut. 23:18.) Clearly, the tithe deliberately did not apply to wages which were a well-known fact of economic life. The tithe solely applied to sources of food from land -- crops and animals. It did not even encompass fish that were caught which the law allowed one to eat in Leviticus 11:9-12.

The Mosaic Law of Tithing

Who was not required to tithe? It is often surprising to people to find that a large segment of people in Israel did not tithe!

The owner of a farm had to tithe, but his hired hands were exempt. Was a hired hand required to tithe on his salary? Not at all! There was no law that required a tenth of one’s salary to be tithed (which was earned for services rendered). Only the crops and animals of those who owned them were subject to the tithe. After all, the crops and the animals did not belong to the hired hand and only the increase from one’s land or animals was subject to the tithe. And note this. Fishermen did not tithe, though this industry is mentioned in the law (Leviticus 11:9–12). Likewise, the mining industry is referred to (Deuteronomy 8:9), but the tithe of minerals extracted from the earth was never called for. The lumber business is mentioned (1 Kings 5:7–12) and construction work on buildings (1 Kings 5:13–18) but tithes were not extracted from people who worked in those trades. The same held true for those earning an income from weaving, handicrafts, or from any form of manufacturing or merchandising. They all were immune from tithing including all those in the military and government workers. And though the Levites were commanded to pay a tenth of the tithe they received from the farmers and ranchers to the Priests, those Priests themselves were totally exempt from paying any tithe.

To make it plain and simple, only the owners of farms and flocks were required to tithe. Indeed, the Israelite who had fewer than ten cattle did not have to tithe on nine of them because the requirement stated that only the tenth animal that passed under the rod was to be tithed (Leviticus 27:32). Looking at this matter of the tenth animal being tithed from our present monetary point of view, a rancher could have many thousands of dollars invested in nine cattle, but unless he had a tenth he was not required to tithe a penny of his assets.

The Three Year Cycle Net Cost Is Low.

The first two years, the farmer owners brought their tithe to the Levites at the Temple of Jerusalem. This was only once per year. The Levites then fed you in a festival from your own tithe. You have a big potluck party, celebrating God's generosity with you. You and your family are to eat the dishes you brought to the party. You are to be joyful and have fun at the Lord's generosity with you. (Deut. 14:23-26.)

This is no more surprising than to find the Law obliged you to bring the first-born farm animals to the Lord. You likewise must "eat it in the presence of the Lord." (Deut. 15:20.) God loves you to give to Him so He can give it right back to you.

Then in year three, the tithe is brought to the Levites in the city where you live. It is directed 100% to widows, orphans, the poor, sojourners (Gentiles) and the Levites among us. (Deut. 14:26-29.) No one else can touch it.

How would this apply today?

There are no more Levites and thus that aspect of the provision is now defunct. They were treated as the poor as they were deprived by Law from owning any land. Only the other eleven tribes could own land. God specifically explains the Levites share in the tithe only because they otherwise are deprived of owning land. This again underscores that the tithe is only applicable to landowner-farmers, not fishermen, workers, etc. 

How should the third year tithe be divided? The Bible gives us no guide. To do justice, the division should be no less than pro rata so that widows, orphans, poor, and sojourners (Gentiles) receive a proportionate share. This way they are not "robbed" by any one group asking more than their fair share. How do we know this principle should apply? Because the Levites of old were excoriated in Malachi 3 for robbing God's tithe by taking more then their fair share from widows, orphans and the poor workers. We will discuss that later below.

The Ghost of Abraham

Sometimes, to avoid the charge of inconsistency over when the Law applies, Paulinist Christians claim Abraham tithed. Based upon Paul's teaching in Galatians 4, they say we are part of that Abrahamic covenant - supposedly a gospel of grace without works. (This is a false claim about that covenant. Paul relied on a Septuagint mistranslation of Gen. 15:6 from 247 BC.) Thus, by endorsing tithing, they would say they are not insisting upon a return to the Law of Moses.

However, Abraham's tithe is not a legitimate example of the tithe they are advocating. His tithe was not on income or crops, and only one time.

Abraham merely once gave 10% of his booty in war to the priest Melchisedek. (Gen. 14:20-23. See also, Heb. 7:4 Abraham paid "a tenth of the spoils.") 

So rarely do the tithe-advocates end there. Abraham's tithe is an insufficient example.

Tithing in the New Testament?

There is no mention of tithing in the New Testament that is endorsed by Paul.

But Jesus does mention it twice. In Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42-44, Jesus scolds the Pharisees for tithing on spices and garden vegetables, but disregarding "justice and the love of God" from the Law. Jesus says "they should have done [the tithing] without neglecting the other..." commandments from the Law.

Sometimes Paulinists cite this and say Jesus "directly affirmed" tithing in this passage from Luke.

Paul's View?

Paul did not teach the tithe. However, Paul did cite the Law on feeding your ox while it treads out the grain (Deut 25:4)

In doing so, Paul's approach is very similar to other Pharisees who Jesus criticized for putting emphasis on the Mosaic Law's commands that provided financial payments that could be exploited by the Pharisees for personal gain, while otherwise the Pharisees "neglected" the rest of the Mosaic Law. (Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42-44.)

The Real & Only Tithe

In Deuteronomy 14:22-29, Moses says God commanded a tithe to follow a three year cycle. The first two years, the tithe was collected at Jerusalem for the tithe-giver to consume in an assembly festivity. It was a big party. (The Levites apparently would host the event.) In the third year, the tithe for the year was stored up and then distributed to the poor (specifically "orphans, widows and the Levites").

To whom did you bring the tithe for distribution? The Levites to whom all the tithes belonged (as custodians and partial participants). (Numbers 18:21.)

Finding A Tithe That Isn't There

However, the Levites' successors (i.e., the Rabbis) of several milennia later saw an ambiguity in Numbers 18:21 ("I have given the children of Levi all the tithes of Israel....") While this merely was a direction to whom to deposit the tithe in trust and for their partial consumption, the self-interest and bias of the Levites' purported successors eventually emerged.

Consider how enormous is the financial incentive to misapply Numbers 18:21. If the 8,580 Levites of Moses' day could convince the 603,550 male adults of the other tribes to hand over 10% of their farm produce and animal produce in a primarily agricultural society, and each of the 603,550 were making $10,000 in selling such produce, then each Levite would end up with the equivalent of $70,000 per year.

In turn, Aaron would have an enormous incentive to encourage this result. Numbers 18 reminds the Levites to pay 10% of whatever they get to the three Aaronic priests. Each of them would end up with the equivalent of $20 million in farm produce a year if you use the modest assumptions above.

These figures demonstrate how ludicrous would be a distinct Numbers 18:21 tithe in Moses' day. For why in any imaginable just way could God put the Levites as part of the "poor" tithe in Deuteronomy 14? Why would God have made Levites share with widows and orphans a poor tithe? Yet, we are supposed to believe God supposedly made each of the 8,580 Levites like rich kings in Numbers 18 at the very same time. (Numbers and Deuteronomy were written almost at the same time.)

Moses is the author of both Deuteronomy and Numbers. I am sure he would have paused and asked God how can you regard Levites as worthy of a poor tithe when you are making each of them phenomally wealthy. It just does not make any sense.

Moreover, when you read the five books of Moses, do you come away with the impression that God wanted the Levites to be the super-rich among the Israelites? Do you ever get the sense that Aaron is a multi-millionaire when you read the Hebrew Scriptures? Nobody else has observed that either.

Nevertheless, Christian authors who realize this disproportionate outcome shamelessly defend it. They claim this extreme wealth of ministers is something God intended by giving the Levites the possession of tithes in Numbers 18:21. They say God intended extreme wealth for the minister class disproportionate to all the other people. After running the figures I just cited above, Avram Yehoshua says:

"As much as the money is, and it is an incredible sum, the issue isn't money, or cattle or grain, etc.The tithe reflected the honor that Yahveh had given to the Levite and the sons of Aaron who gave up their life, and their interest in this world, to serve Yahveh full time."

This makes no sense. The Levite had been given no land by God. To make up for that, God gave them a share of the tithe in the third year (and a lot of other fringe benefits that we will discuss in a moment). If the tithe is to be compensation for not having land yourself, then the tithe should bear some reasonable relationship to what you have lost. If God instead had a purpose to make each of them super-rich above all his neighbors, we would expect to see some mention of that. Instead, God had the Levites lumped in with widows and orphans in a poor tithe in Deuteronomy 14:26-29.

If God's stated purpose is merely to make up for Levites having no land, then God's providing a level of contribution in Numbers 18 as a supposedly distinct tithe in addition to the Deuteronomy 14:26-29 tithe makes no sense. This alleged priestly tithe would give each priest seven times the effective income that any one else is deriving from the land. It is as if the Levites are given seven times as much land than any other tribe.

Such a disproportionate result clearly violates the intent God expresses in Numbers 18 that the tithe made up for the fact the Levites had no land. The alleged Numbers 18 tithe would have turned the Levites into barons far wealthier than anyone else. This actually appears to be the contrary of the purpose of the tithe, as God explains in Numbers 18.

Furthermore, if the tithe (tenth) really had been 20% (i.e., both the Deuteronomy 14 and alleged Numbers 18:21 tithe), then why did God call it a tithe (a tenth)? Why not call it a fifth  (20%) and then specify how it is distributed in years 1, 2 and 3 by various divisions similar to what is laid out in Deuteronomy 14? Since God specified how Levites share in the tithe in Deuteronomy 14, He could equally have said how they shared in a two-tenths payment too.

In other words, it is called a tithe both in Deuteronomy 14 and Numbers 18 for a good reason: it is one single tenth or tithe. What is overlooked is that God already specified a partial division to Levites in Deuteronomy 14. It was an unreasonable reading of Numbers 18 to assume God intended a new and exclusive right to a second tenth just for Levites.

Moreover, in God's economy, why was it necessary yearly to give the Levites your tithe when the Levites were entitled to eat all the daily, weekly and annual meat sacrificed in the Temple from all eleven tribes--an enormous disproportionate benefit which the poor did not enjoy? (Lev. 7:1-7.) Some experts claim the value of meat brought to the annual sacrifices at Jerusalem was equivalent to bringing a new car from each family.

The truth is there is but one tithe: the Deuteronomy 14 tithe, which includes the third-year tithe. This third-year tithe is repeated in Deuteronomy 26:12. This eliminates any possible misunderstanding on how the tithe was to be used and distributed. It belonged to the Levites as God's priests (holding it in trust and for their own good too) in each of the three years. Yet, its distribution was supposed to follow Deuteronomy 14 and 26 -- festivals at Jerusalem for tithers in years 1 and 2, but in year 3 it would be distributed in each town to the poor, widows, Levites, etc.

How People Got Duped

The main way of convincing people -- in particular the Jewish people -- that there is such a thing as a distinct extra Levitical tithe is to quote the Numbers 18:21 passage first. If the listener does not have the context of the earlier mention of the tithe in Deuteronomy 14, they can be duped. The listener is unaware God already defined the tenth to include the Levites in year three. There was no intent in Numbers 18:21 to define a second tenth. It was merely referring back to the tenth defined in Deuteronomy 14. It was necessary because Deuteronomy 14 did not say to whom the tenth was delivered. Numbers 18:21 merely cleared that up: the tenth (previously defined) belongs to the Levites.

In year 3, the Levites were allowed to keep a share of the tithe for themselves, but each year of the 3 year cycle the Levites took ownership over all tithes. God's purpose is expressed clearly in Numbers 18: this will make up for the Levites not being given any tribal land themselves. It was not intended to make them super-rich which would be the result if you imagined the 603,000 male adults of working age of all other tribes started tithing to the 8,300 Levites. The Levites would be rich Lords, having seven times the effective income of any individual Israelite, as explained earlier.

Without knowing that context, you might wrongly assume Numbers 18 is speaking of a tithe only for Levites. By this tactic of quoting out-of-context, you end up with Alcorn's conclusion that "the first and most basic tithe was for religious purposes, specifically to support spiritual leaders...." (Alcorn, supra, at 175.) Absolutely not! The first and only tithe is the Deuteronomy 14 tithe.

Later Jewish Practices & Tradition.

The history of tithing in Judaism proves the practice of a second tithe for only the "priest" came late. It did not arise under Moses.

How do we know that? First, from the math. If Moses and Aaron were taking down $20 million a year, we surely could anticipate grumbling from the same people who grumbled over manna from Heaven. We find no complaints in Scripture.

Second, by the time Scripture closes with Malachi in the 600 B.C. period, there is not one mention anywhere in Scripture of the so-called Levitical tithe as Numbers 18 is now viewed to represent.

Instead, there is only mention of the poor tithe in Malachi 3. Someone was oppressing widows and orphans (Mal. 3:5). In the same context, God said someone was robbing tithes owed. (Mal. 3:8.) We will see below that it was the Levites who were taking too much of their poor tithe. (If the Numbers tithe was distinct and made the Levites super-wealthy, one has to wonder why God says they are plundering the poor's tithe in Malachi 3:8.)

The Dark Ages

The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Tithes" records the first reference by any Christian body to the tithe was in 567 A.D. "The earliest positive [church] legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the cannons of the Council of Macon in 585."

Then this was made Roman law in 785 AD. The Catholic Encyclopediaon "Tithes" says "the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiastical tithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne, at the end of the eighth century." This was in the year 785 AD. Charlemagne required every citizen to be baptized and all citizens to pay a tithe to the Roman Catholic Church. Until that time, there is no record of a Christian tithe for the ministers/priests.

Please allow a small digression. This tithe to the Roman Catholic Church is how it became so dominant throughout the world. Instead of this church using it exclusively for the poor, the fantastic wealth it created was used in large part to finance church expansion and building projects at the expense of the poor to whom the tithe was directed by God Almighty. St. Peter's basilica is a living testament to man's foul use of the tithe. Constantine began its construction in 324 A.D. on the site of the Circus of Nero. The modern basilica was begun in 1506 and completed in 1615. The excessive expense on this building, while glorious to behold, is surely a stench in the nostrils of the Lord. The tithe for the poor was misused for the aggrandizement of the religious establishment who "devour widows houses" to make a show to the world.

Proper repentance would melt the gold down, give it to the poor, and then rebuild a humble church on its foundation made of granite. This is the kind of church our humble Master would visit, not an ostentatious building made from tithes that belonged to the poor. In fact, the construction of this monstrosity of injustice is what compelled the Catholic Church to invent the notion of indulgences. These were sold worldwide to finance the basilica at Rome. The Church made a high pressure promise that underwriting the basilica by an indulgence would speedily free relatives from an alleged purgatory nowhere mentioned in inspired scripture.

Jewish Later Practices

For Jews, the first mention of any Levitical extra tithe was by Maimonides, a Jewish compiler of the Law and tradition around 1200 A.D. Perhaps inspired by Charlemagne's imposition of a priestly tithe to the Catholic Church, Jews found such reasoning useful among themselves. Thus, in Maimonides, we find the first clear directive within Judaism to pay a Levitical tithe based on Numbers 18: a 10% tithe citing Numbers 18:24 (which I contend is an erroneous interpretation) besides the tithe in Deuteronomy 14 (the true and only tithe).

These were self-serving interpretations of the Law. It added burdens of a 20% annual "tithe" that was not in the Law and could not possibly have been the original intent of Numbers 18. Christians should have followed Jesus' example and tried to recognize burdensome traditions that were not part of God's plan.

Regardless of what happened among the Jews, some Protestant evangelicals today defend a second priest-only tithe so as tell Christians that such payment rightly belongs to Christian clergy alone today, and not the poor or tithers themselves in the original three year cycle. 

Traditional Christian View Eliminates Tithe to Poor

However, modern Christians have engaged in even worse self-serving interpretations than Maimonides. At least Maimonides preserved the widows and orphans tithe. However, the Christian reformulation disregards this aspect of the Deuteronomy 14:22-29 tithe. This passage in Deuteronomy clearly specifies a widows-orphans-priest tithe every third year. There is no net tithe in years 1 and 2 (just a potluck in Jerusalem.) Rather than follow Jesus, who faught false additions to the Law, the predominant Christian view is annual tithing to ministers applies.

The predominant Christian view is we are bound to a 10% tithe just to support the Levites. This is then updated to apply to our new priestly (or ministerial) class. If we don't, they cite Malachi 3 to say "we" are robbing God of His tithes.

Who got forgotten in the Christian re-application? The poor tithe for widows and orphans disappears entirely. We have robbed God of the one tithe that actually was intended to reach someone other than the giver!!! We have robbed God's purposes so we can give exclusively year after year to the one class (priests/ministers) who God intended to share only every third year with orphans and widows!

The Christian prevailing view is that we, the people, rob God's tithes by not paying the priests, i.e., our ministers/church. (See Alcorn, supra, at 174.) This is a very odd interpretation of Malachi 3:3-11.

Of course, these teachers never quote or cite verse 3 of that passage. This passage, in its full context, tells you the Levites are the ones robbing the tithe that belongs to the widow and orphans. They are taking more than their pro rata share. It is not the people who are failing to pay their tithes who are the troublemakers who rob God, as our ministers like to present this passage to us. Let's take a closer look.

Malachi 3:3-11

Who is the "you" in this passage who is robbing tithes "from the whole nation" (v. 8) and "oppressing widows and orphans"? (v. 5.)

Malachi 3:3-11 says the "sons of Levi" had to be purified. (Mal. 3:3). From the first to third chapter of Malachi, the you spoken of was almost exclusively the Priests/Levites. See Mal. 1:6-8, ("priests show contempt for my name"), 2:1 ("O Priests! ...You have not set your heart to honor me"), 2:7-8 ("the lips of the priest ought to preserve knowledge...but you have turned from the way"), 2:17, 3:1-2.

So when we get to the famous passage on robbing tithes, which is so often used to instill guilt in us (i.e., the people), the true intended jab is at priests. By the modern analogy, God is skewering our ministers if they are not protecting the tithe going also to widows and orphans by right.

In Malachi, it was clearly the priests who are the "you" who were "robbing" God of His tithe. In the same breath, God says these robbers are "oppressing...orphans and widows." If you means instead that the people were not paying tithes, as the predominant pulpit preachers teach today, then why doesn't it say the Levites are being oppressed just as much as widows and orphans? Each were entitled to the tithe every third year in Deuteronomy 14:23-29. The only explanation that makes sense is the priests were taking shares of the tithe to which they were not entitled. (See Mal. 2:17, priests flounting God.) This is why the robbers caused oppression to the "widows and orphans," rather than the oppression being on all three: widows, orphans and Levites.

Moreover, if the Levites too were being robbed and hence victims of the robbers, then why does the preceding verse talk of "purifying" the Levites? God is condemning them in the preceding verse as well as the first two chapters of Malachi. If God intended us to feel sorry for them over a non-payment of the tithe, this was an odd way to do so. One might even suppose reading Malachi that God wanted the tithe to stop going to such evil priests.

Again it is plain: in Malachi 3, the Levites are the transgressors of the tithe, not the public at large. They were the ones robbing God. They were thereby oppressing the widow and the orphan. They forgot the tithe that belonged also to the fatherless and the lonely widow. The spiritual leaders were devouring widows houses by these practices.

The Evangelical Church's Hypocrisy Over the Law

So how do Paulinist Christians defend insisting Chistians pay the tithe (as they read the Law in Numbers 18), but simultaneously say the Law does not apply to Christians?

Randy Alcorn in Money, Possessions and Eternity (2003) provides a mainstream Christian defense of the teaching of tithing. Afte citing Malachi, and talking in absolute terms about how the tithe belongs to God, Pastor Alcorn gets down to the law-grace issue.

Randy claims he "detests legalism." He means teaching that the Mosaic Law applies to a Christian. (Id., at 181.) He then acknowledges the strongest argument against tithing is the ‘law versus grace' argument. Yet, he says just because we are under grace does not mean we "should stop doing all that was done under the [Mosaic] law." (Id.)

Now the inconsistency about this should be embarassing. If anyone used such reasoning about continuing the command to rest on the true Sabbath (Saturday) or keeping the festival of Passover (which is a type of Messianic prophecy), such a teacher would be branded an heretical legalist. Yet, because Randy is talking of tithing, we move aside. The Church needs the cash. It has to make an exception.

So Randy Alcorn then says "I believe there's ongoing value to certain aspects of the old covenant." (Id., 181.) I concur. But why? What is the criteria? Is it because Randy's church needs money? Or is it because God' word is still applicable today?

Randy then says clearly, "we were never told that tithing has been superseded and ... Jesus directly affirmed it (Matthew 23:23)...." (Id., at 181.)  Randy Alcorn closes his argument stating that "it seems to me the burden of proof falls on those who say that tithing is no longer a minimum standard for God's people." (Id., at 181.) Therefore, it remains God's word.

Precisely. And Jesus affirmed that all the Law continues in Matthew 5:17-20 until heaven and earth pass away.

So why is any of the Law disregarded today? Why is Sabbath disregarded? Why did Luther teach in 1521 that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on a Christian? Why does almost all Protestant Christianity today say that anyone who says the Ten Commandments are binding are guilty of heretical legalism? But why then does the tithe continue from the Mosaic law but nothing else from the Law?

The answer is precisely in how we proved above that the tithe is distorted and misrepresented. As taught in churches today, the tithe is surely an unjustified pressure to abide by a false depiction of the Mosaic law duty to tithe. This inconsistency is a knowing one born of the spirit of Phariseeism as Jesus depicted it.

Jesus did not criticize "legalism" -- supposedly pro-Law positions -- among Pharisees, but the opposite. Jesus condemned the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 for teaching the lesser command of "tithing," but neglecting to teach the greater commands of the Law about "justice, mercy, and faithfulness." Most if not ALL Churches clearly have the identical spirit of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned -- they are equally anti-Law teachers except on the issue of tithing.

To deflect their guilt, the modern clergy misrepresent the Pharisees as legalists whom Jesus supposedly attacked for being too strict about the Law applying. However, Jesus' attack on them in Matthew 23:23 was for the opposite reason -- for a teaching identical to modern doctrine on the Law that tithing continues, but the rest is neglected, including the Law's principles of "justice" (right and wrong); its principle of "mercy" (which in the Ten Commandments says God's "mercy" is conditioned on (a) love of God and (b) obeying God's commandments -- Exodus 20:6), and its principles of "faithfulness" (obedience).

Christians Have Gone One Better

Finally consider the modern tragedy about tithing. The concept of tithing has made a tradition out of a terrible version of the tithe. God condemned in Malachi as a sign of apostasy that priests (ministers) were robbing the poor widows and orphans of their share of the tithe. Yet, that is precisely what our modern ministers do. They claim they are entitled to all of it, and every year. Among churches/Wards/stakes & etc.., the poor widows and orphans have no specific tithe dedicated to them, as God's word on tithing actually required.

For the Pauline Christian, this is the same as saying do what feels right in your own conscience, rather than any "bondage" to the Law of tithing to the poor widow and orphan.

No wonder widows and orphans specifically fit into almost no ministry of any Christian church. We may give to the poor as a diffuse group. Yet, how often do we focus on widows and orphans? God showed us that among the poor, these two groups have a far greater legitimacy to an absolute commitment of ten percent each three years from God's people. But we don't do that.

What is the key verse in Malichi we should heed about tithing? "[Y]ou are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them." (Mal. 3:7.)

And from our Lord:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation. (Matt. 23:14)

Latter-Day Saint History

From D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power," chapter 6

Since 1831 LDS bishop Edward Partridge and his counselors had presided over all Mormons in Missouri, which had equal status with church headquarters in Ohio.7 In December 1837 they defined tithing as 2 percent of one's net worth, after deducting debts. 'Believing that voluntary tithing is better than Forced taxes,' the Missouri bishopric defined it as 'two cents on the dollar or one fiftieth of what we are worth after deducting what we owe.'8 Until 1908 Mormons were allowed to pay tithing in labor, personal property, livestock, and produce in addition to cash.9

In August 1844 the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued an epistle which required all Mormons to immediately pay 'a tenth of all their property and money . . . and then let them continue to pay in a tenth of their income from that time forth.' There was no exemption for Mormons who had already paid one-tenth of their property upon conversion.11 In January 1845 a Quorum of Twelve's epistle reemphasized 'the duty of all saints to tithe themselves one-tenth of all they possess when they enter into the new and everlasting covenant: and then one-tenth of their interest, or income, yearly afterwards.'12 However, two weeks later the Twelve voted to exempt themselves, the two general bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and the Nauvoo Temple Committee from any obligation to pay tithing. This was due to their services to the church.13

Apostle John E. Page's enforcement of the full-tithing requirement for the rank-and-file led to his disaffection from his own quorum. Exempted from tithing himself, Page felt guilty about collecting tithing from others such as one Mormon who gave $4 which was 'the tenth of all' the man and his impoverished family possessed. Upon abandoning the Quorum of the Twelve in 1846, Page complained that he 'believes that many paid tithing & in consequence of [this, were in] want of money enough to procure misc. necessaries of life.'14

Five years later Brigham Young provided a penalty for those Mormons who did not comply with the published definitions of the law of tithing. In September 1851 a special conference at Salt Lake City voted to accept excommunication as punishment for non-payment of tithing and non-observance of the Word of Wisdom's prohibition of tobacco and spirituous alcohol. Neither requirement was enforced consistently or often.15 Nevertheless, in 1854 the Deseret News printed a notice by the bishop of the Salt Lake City Nineteenth Ward that Enoch M. King was disfellowshipped 'for repeatedly refusing to conform to the rules of said Church, in the law of Tithing.' In October 1858 a bishop's meeting asked Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter: 'Are all to be cut off who do not pay their Tithing? Answer, deal according to circumstances, and the wisdom God gives.'16

On this matter Apostle Erastus Snow was more zealous than most. In 1868 he gave orders to southern Utah bishops to excommunicate everyone 'who will not keep the word of wisdom, Pay their Tithing & donate of their substance to help bring the Poor Saints from the old country.' A local Mormon estimated that enforcement of Snow's instruction 'would cause 3/4 of this community to be cut off from this church.'17

For the church as a whole, Brigham Young publicly estimated that Latter-day Saints had paid less than 10 percent of their 10 percent tithing obligations from 1847 to 1870.18 In other words, adult Mormons were contributing, on average, less than 1 percent of their net worth at conversion, less than 1 percent of their net worth upon arrival in Utah, and less than 1 percent of their annual income. However, pioneer definitions of tithing delinquency varied radically. In Cache Valley during the same period, local bishops concluded that 90 percent of people who could pay tithing were full-tithe payers. The difference in perspective was due to the fact that these Cache Valley bishops 'excused' a large portion of the population from tithing due to poverty. The church president's report made no such distinctions.19

After President Young's announcement of tithing delinquency, LDS general authorities gave sermons to remind church members that the law of tithing was 'one tenth of all we possess at the start, and then ever after one tenth . . .'20 Apostle Erastus Snow even reinvoked the 1838 revelation's original requirement to donate all surplus property at first.21 These sermons were futile efforts to reverse a nineteenth-century trend of financial non-compliance. Otherwise faithful Mormons withered before an overwhelming tithing obligation. Young told the October 1875 general conference that neither he nor anyone else 'had ever paid their tithing as it was revealed and understood by him in the Doctrine and Covenants.'22

John Taylor tried to increase church donations by liberalizing the law of tithing for the first time since 1841. On the fiftieth anniversary of the church's organization, he declared a biblical Jubilee Year in which he forgave half of the delinquent tithing and half of the debts owed to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund.23 After the Jubilee year of 1880 failed to bring in the unforgiven half of delinquent tithing, the church president offered a carrot-and-stick approach to tithing in 1881. On 8 January 1881 Taylor said he did not care whether Mormons paid the 'one-tenth of the property of the new comers' to Utah, as required by Brigham Young. However, the Presiding Bishopric's tithing clerk recorded that, on motion of the LDS president, the assembled priesthood holders voted unanimously to sustain the requirement of 'one tenth of the property on entering the Church, and one tenth of the increase afterward.'24 At this stake conference in January and again at general co

nference in April 1881, President Taylor instructed stake presidents that church members now 'must be tithe payers' in order to have recommends for temple ordinances.25

The early tithing requirements of Mormonism give added significance to the numbers of immigrants to Utah before 1881 and to the numbers of LDS converts prior to 1899. At a personal level, any Mormon who paid a full tithing by nineteenth-century definitions (like the man who gave $4 in 1845) was deserving of awe and veneration. Then in May 1899 Lorenzo Snow publicly announced a revelation which limited the law of tithing to one-tenth of annual income with no massive payment upon conversion. As an LDS church president, Snow is best known for his emphasis on observance of this new definition of tithing.26 This was the last LDS liberalization of the 1838 revelation on tithing. From then until the present, Mormons have been allowed to decide whether to pay tithing on their gross income or net income.27

Lorenzo Snow's announcement was undoubtedly the cause for a significant increase in the percentage of Mormons who paid at least some tithing (see Table). In 1890, 17.2 percent of LDS stake membership had paid some tithing, and the percentage hovered around 15 percent for seven years. In 1898 the percentage of stake members who paid some tithing was only 1 percent higher than in 1890. In 1899, the year of Lorenzo Snow's announcement, the number of tithe payers in the stakes jumped to 25.6 percent.28

In early 1900 President Snow asked the Presiding Bishop to prepare a list 'of non-tithe payers and about 10,000 names were in the record.'29 Snow told the apostles that non-payment of tithing 'was worse than the non-observance of the Word of Wisdom' prohibitions against tobacco and alcohol. The time had long since passed when general authorities were exempt from the obligation to pay tithing, and one apostle was shocked to learn that Apostle John W. Taylor's 'name is on the Non-Tithing List!'30

In April 1910 the church president announced it was necessary to comply with this greatly reduced law of tithing in order to have temple recommends.31 This 1910 announcement was a reincarnation of the poorly enforced First Presidency announcement in 1881. Since 1910 bishops and stake presidents have given greater attention to the requirement of tithing for temple recommends. Higher expectations of tithing compliance were possible because twentieth-century Mormons have had it easy regarding their tithing obligations compared with nineteenth-century Mormons.

Table 1.

LDS Stake Members Who Paid Some Tithing, 1890-1925

(per capita for total membership)

TITHE TITHE TITHE TITHE

YEARS PAYERS YEARS PAYERS YEARS PAYERS YEARS PAYERS

1890 17.2% 1900 27.0% 1910 21.6% 1920 21.9%

1891 15.1% 1901 28.9% 1911 21.0% 1921 20.7%

1892 15.8% 1902 28.2% 1912 20.6% 1922 28.4%

1893 14.9% 1903 28.5% 1913 21.0% 1923 27.3%

1894 15.7% 1904 27.6% 1914 20.1% 1924 25.1%

1895 15.3% 1905 26.4% 1915 20.0% 1925 25.3%

1896 15.1% 1906 26.1% 1916 20.1%

1897 15.6% 1907 26.8% 1917 21.8%

1898 18.4% 1908 26.0% 1918 21.3%

1899 25.6% 1909 25.0% 1919 22.3%

Of course the figures in this Table were significantly higher than the percentage of stake members who paid a full tithing. During the pre-Depression first quarter of the twentieth century, the highest percentage of full-tithe payers was in 1910. In that year 16.5 percent of the church's total stake membership of men, women, and children paid a full 10-percent tithing.32 However, neither of the above measures adequately assesses individual compliance by Mormons concerning their church's requirement for tithing.

The annual reports did not regularly list the number of wage-earners or consistently show the percentage of wage-earners who actually paid tithing. The 54,346 full-tithe payers in 1910 were a much higher percentage (though unquantifiable) of the wage-earners among Latter-day Saints in the stakes that year. For example, in the very next year 59.3 percent were full-tithe payers of the total wage-earners. Likewise, the highest percentage (28.9 percent) who paid any tithing in that quarter-century amounted to 74,625 tithe payers in 1901. That had to be an impressive record for the Mormon wage-earners in the stakes that year, for the lowest rate of tithe paying during that quarter-century was 20 percent of total stake population in 1915. In that latter year 73 percent of wage-earners paid at least some tithing.33 The praise of Mormon leaders for the financial devotion of LDS church members has never been exaggerated.

Tithing donations from the widow's mite to the rich man's abundance have always been the essential source of LDS church revenues. When Esquire magazine's August 1962 cover story claimed the church's revenues were $1 million a day,34 tithing revenues were actually about $100 million that year instead of $365 million.35 This 350+ percent error was due to careless research and a wild guess by Salt Lake City's non-Mormon mayor, J. Bracken Lee: 'I do know that the net income exceeds a million dollars a day.'36 With far more attention to available details, a carefully researched estimate of 1991 was probably closer to the mark in claiming that the LDS church received $4.3 billion in annual tithing revenue.37 The accuracy of this estimate is debatable, since recent tithing figures are unavailable for research.

However, annual tithing revenues for the decade prior to the Esquire estimate are helpful for estimating recent LDS church income. In 1962 tithing revenues were about $56.62 per capita for total LDS membership that year, nearly double the per capita tithing revenues of $28.65 in 1952. In real dollars (a term in economic history), the 1962 tithing equalled $253 per capita in 1990 dollars.38 Therefore, assuming similar tithing observance in 1990 (without including the observable annual growth rate), this would translate to $1.96 billion in tithing revenue during 1990. From that perspective, LDS Public Affairs in 1991 rightly dismissed the estimate of $4.3 billion of annual tithing income as 'grossly overstated.'39 However, by including the growth rate of the earlier reports by LDS headquarters, it is difficult to regard $4.3 billion as a 'grossly overstated' estimate of annual LDS revenues in the 1990s.

A nearly 100 percent growth rate in the actual dollars of per capita tithing from 1952 to 1962 cannot simply be ignored when estimating the LDS church's present income. That decade included the explosive growth of LDS conversions outside the United States and Canada. There is no reason to discount similar growth in tithing rates during the three decades since 1962. With the 1952-62 period as a basis of comparison, the church's tithing revenues for 1990 would be far in excess of the estimate of $4.3 billion. From this perspective that estimate seems conservative.

However, it is important to recognize that tithing from Mormons outside the United States has rarely ever been transferred to church headquarters in America. Except for the early years of the British Mission (established in 1837) and of the Canadian settlements of Mormons (begun in 1887), Mormon tithing funds have remained in the countries of their origin. The first reason for this is that foreign outposts of Mormonism have been financial drains on the church's general funds, which typically supplement local tithing collected outside the United States. In the nineteenth century it was more practical to use foreign tithing for the immediate needs of the missions and branches in each country where it was collected. Physical transfer of overseas funds required months of travel to and from headquarters in the United States.

The second reason for keeping tithing in the country of its origin was that the church lost money in exchange fees for every transaction involving U.S. dollars and foreign currency. The third reason is that (particularly in the twentieth century) laws of some countries either complicated or prohibited transfers of tithing to the United States. The bottom line is that the net flow of tithing funds has been from Salt Lake City to other countries where Mormons have converted and eventually built chapels and temples.

Both the definition of tithing and the extent of its payment have evolved since 1831. The LDS church could not have become the international organization it is today without the development of regular tithe paying.

This Sunstone article from June 1996 is by LDS historian Michael Quinn. He gives a fascinating insight into tithing in the early days of the Church.

"Church finances have not always been as they are today. Imagine today's Church if: tithing were 2 percent, converts had to give all their surplus to the Church, bishops were paid 8 percent of the ward's tithing, patriarchs charged fees, and each April the Church released a detailed financial report"

see http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm for way too much information.

Brigham Young's attitude!

In regard to Tithing, I am now speaking to the Latter-day Saints in this land, who have health to labor, who can surround themselves with an abundance of the comforts and blessings of life, who can build houses and open up farms at their pleasure. Shall we pay Tithing or shall we not? We have said pay your Tithing. And we have said to the Bishops that if any man refuses to pay his Tithing, try him for his fellowship; and if he still refuses, cut him off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so we say now. We have not required this of the people, but the Lord has required it, and that is enough for us and for all the Latter-day Saints upon the earth. If we live our religion we will be willing to pay Tithing. http://jod.mrm.org/10/282#283

What did Joseph Smith teach?

Joseph Smith had not even been in his grave a month before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued an edict declaring that instead of giving of their surplus, the Saints were to henceforth give "a tenth of all their property and money...and then let them continue to pay a tenth of their income from that time forth." There was no exemption for those who had already given all their surplus. The new rule was a tenth of everything right off the top.

And note that the twelve didn't pretend this change represented a revelation from God; they just needed more money, and issued a decree to get it. They arbitrarily changed the definition of tithing just because they wanted to. Apparently some people don't understand the meaning of "a standing law forever." Oh well. The Prophet was dead. New Management, New Rules.

And guess what? Two weeks after that announcement, the Twelve voted to exempt themselves from any obligation to pay tithing at all, not even a tiny bit on their surplus. God's "standing law forever" had only been in place for six years, and already it was being eroded by those charged with administering it.

Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?

We Latter-day Saints have become so accustomed these days to having false doctrine preached at us in church that we barely even blink anymore when we hear it.

Last week in my local sacrament meeting, both speakers gave talks on the same topic, the law of tithing, and both promoted views that were not only not found in God's word, but were actually outright perversions of the law.

It would be unfair to blame the speakers for the misinformation they were spreading. After all, they were only repeating the same myths and assumptions most of us have been taught since childhood, and the teachers and parents who taught them to us did not know any better, either. Some of these false teachings are that tithing is the Lord's money; that a tithe constitutes ten percent of our total earnings; that we must always make sure to pay tithing first before paying our bills; that tithing money goes to help the poor and needy; that by paying a full tithe God promises to bless us individually; that tithe paying is a commandment that every member of the church is expected to obey regardless of circumstances; and that tithing must be paid before anything else even if it means your children will go hungry.

None of those assumptions can be backed up by scripture, but that latter assumption, perhaps the most insidious and widespread perversion of God's law currently being promoted from the pulpit, is typified by the following statement which appears in the current issue of The Ensign magazine:

"If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing." (Aaron L. West, Sacred Transformations, December 2012)

If we are going to correctly observe God's law of tithing -and make no mistake, it is most certainly a law- perhaps it's time we clear our minds of the detritus that has accumulated from decades of secondhand information, and get the straight skinny directly from the Lord himself. After all, how can we say we understand a law if we haven't even read it?

First, some background: On December 7, 1836, Bishop Edward Partridge and his counselors officially defined tithing as 2 percent of the net worth of each member of the church, after deducting debts. This money was put to covering the operating expenses of the Church, and it appears to have been adequate for a time. Still, this was man's law, not God's. Apparently no one in the young Church had thought to ask God about it yet, so He had not weighed in on the matter.

Two years later, when the Church was eight years old, some 15,000 converts had already emigrated from their homes and gathered to Missouri, the new Zion.  Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, who constituted the First Presidency at the time, were spending all their time dealing with and settling this huge flow of immigrants, to the exclusion of being able to provide a living for their own families. Things were at a point where Joseph and Sidney must either be compensated for their time, or they were both going to have to stop what they were doing and go out and get a real job. On May 12th the two men took the matter before the High Council of the Church. George W. Robinson recorded the minutes:

The Presidency laid before the High Council their situation as to maintaining their families in the situation and relation they stood to the Church, spending as they have for eight years their time, talents, and property in the service of the Church and now reduced as it were to absolute beggary and still were detained in the service of the Church. It now [had] become necessary that something should be done for their support, either by the Church or else they must do it themselves of their own labors. If the Church said, "Help yourselves," they would thank them and immediately do so, but if the Church said, "Serve us," then some provisions must be made for them. (Scott Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, Pg 182.)

The High Council voted eleven to one (George Hinkle vigorously opposed "a salaried ministry") to further contract the two men for their services, being careful to note that the money was "not for preaching or for receiving the word of God by revelation, neither for instructing the Saints in righteousness," but for work in the "printing establishment, in translating the ancient records, &c, &c." (ibid.)

Richard S. Van Wagoner, in his biography of Sidney Rigdon, further explains: 

After negotiations, they agreed to offer Rigdon and Smith an annual contract of $1,100 apiece, more than three times what the average worker of the day could earn. Ebenezer Robinson, the High Council's clerk, later wrote that "when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the Church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic that at the next meeting of the High Council, the resolution voting them a salary was rescinded." (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, Pg 230.)

What the High Council did instead was offer the men 80 acres for their families to live on. So now Joseph and Sidney had some ground under them, but no walking around money. Maybe if they had asked for a more reasonable salary to begin with, there might not have been such an outcry. (Frankly, I blame Rigdon for the overreach. That just sounds like Sidney Rigdon to me.)

Anyway, the Church had been growing faster than anyone had anticipated, so it was past time to get the Lord's opinion on how to handle the financial end of things. Even though Bishop Partridge had declared tithing to be 2 percent of net, Partridge was not authorized to set doctrine; only God could do that. So in July of 1838,  Joseph put the question to the Lord as to how all this was intended to work, and the answer is what we now know as the law of tithing. This law consists of the entire chapter of D&C 119, and takes up all of seven short verses. You can read the whole thing inside of half a minute. Why don't you grab your scriptures and do that right now? Or just click here to see it online. Then let's analyze it together.

The first thing you may notice about the law of tithing is that it concisely addresses two important questions:

1.  How much are members expected to contribute?

2.  What are those contributions to be spent on?

Those who have been conditioned by a lifetime of false propaganda about tithing may have difficulty coming to the realization that a "full tithe" constitutes less than you probably thought it did. A lot less.  There may be some things in life that are difficult to bear, or that constitute a sacrifice, but tithing,when properly understood, should not be one of them. The Lord designed it to be easy, painless, and cheap.

But let's get to that later. Before we look at how much we are expected to pay in tithing, let's jump to number 2 and look at what tithing funds are intended to be spent on.  Broken down, they are really quite simple:

1. The building of the Lord's house. 

2. The laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood.

3. The debts of the Presidency of the Church. 

You'll notice there's nothing in there about helping the poor, earthquake relief, or any humanitarian aid.  Charitable giving is something we are definitely commanded to do, but believe it or not, charitable giving is something that is separate from tithing. The purpose of tithing, in a nutshell, is to pay for the costs of managing Church affairs. Every faithful member is expected to shoulder his share of those costs.  If done correctly, paying tithing is painless, and should leave plenty left over for charity. If done according to the dictates of man, it can be quite difficult, and charity often gets left behind.

You'll also notice when reading the law of tithing that it contains no mention of any blessings accruing to those who comply with the law, although verse 6 does contain something that looks a bit like a curse upon those who fail to observe it.

And here's something you might find curious.  For all this talk we keep hearing about tithing being a commandment, no form of that word appears anywhere in this section. Why do you suppose that is?  The attentive reader will also notice that the words "obey" and "obedience" don't appear within the law of tithing, either. Everywhere else in scripture where we are given a commandment, it's pretty clear that what we are being given is a commandment, isn't it? So why not here?

Could it be that The law of Tithing is not what the Lord would normally consider a commandment? Oh, it's very clearly an obligation, make no mistake about that. We are told that if we fail to observe the law of tithing (in this instance, at least, the Lord uses words such as "observe" and "keep" in lieu of obey), we won't have a Zion society. So what is the law of tithing if it isn't a commandment?

Well, it's a law.

Confused yet? That's probably because most of us have come to attribute 21st century meanings to 19th century words, and when we think of laws we often think of them the way we do man-made decrees; statutes we are ordered to obey. The meaning of this other kind of law -the law God introduces- is often related to cause and effect.

Now of course there is often some overlap when discussing laws and commandments, but they are not precisely synonymous. Commandments often operate on some direct spiritual motivation; that is, they need no set of instructions to be complied with.  Their execution is self evident.

When Jesus said, "if you love me, keep my commandments," we understand His meaning right away. We love him, therefore we desire to follow his wishes. Implicit also in that statement is that those who don't love Jesus probably won't obey his commandments. They wouldn't be motivated to. Either way, they are called co-mandments, not demand-ments. A tyrant may demand something of you, but God asks his disciples to "come" with him, which is the reason for the suffix "co-" which implies we come willingly, we are co-operating with his will, rather than as unwilling subjects of a tyrant who forces compliance to his demands.  To the person who is truly born again in Christ, the desire to keep the commandments is inherent in the conversion.  Following the will of Christ is something you find you want to do, and which therefore comes easily. As a rule, you usually don't have to have a commandment explained to you.

For example, when Jesus said, "a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another," his followers did not then require any detailed set of instructions about how love operates.  Once you experience the unconditional love of the spirit, you don't need to be told how to be compassionate or charitable; you are motivated to act by the pure love of Christ.

Once the Holy Ghost has filled your heart with mercy (the scriptures say it's your bowels that are filled, but I'm going to go with heart), then as you come across someone who is hungry, you'll feed him, if you see someone thirsty, you'll give him drink, if you see someone naked, you'll clothe him, and so on. You are motivated on a spiritual plane to act. You don't need a list of rules explaining how mercy works.

On the other hand, the use of the word "law" in section 119 has little to do with a command to pay our tithes. It is not about obeying a law.  Section 119 is concerned with explaining how and in what manner the tithes are to be obtained, and to what purposes they are to be spent. In that sense, the law is procedural, by dictionary definition it is "a rule of direction."

Before God revealed His law of tithing, members of the church were quite willing to tithe, they just didn't know how, they didn't understand the proper procedure. Section 119 spelled it out for them. It provided the rule of direction as to how it was to be accomplished, both as to receiving and disbursing. That is what is meant by the law of tithing: it refers to procedural law, the process of obtaining and disbursing the tithes. It has almost nothing to do with obedience.

This is not to say that the law of tithing need not be observed. The Lord is very clear that it is to be strictly kept, at least by those who wish to remain worthy to abide in Zion.  But human nature being what it is, actually keeping the law as it was given has constantly been a challenge;and not so much for the members as for the leaders of the Church who have constantly been caught tampering with it.

There are a few places in the D&C where tithing is briefly mentioned (64:23, 97:11-12, and 85:3), but if you're looking for the actual Law of Tithing, you will only find that in section 119. That is the Law of Tithing in its totality. We know so because in verses 3 and 4 the Lord tells us this will be the beginning of the tithing of His people, and that it will be "a standing law" unto us forever. So whatever you believe about tithing, if it's not in there, it's not part of the law.  

Painless Payments

In the first verse, the Lord announces the first part of the tithe. It is for all the surplusproperty to be put into the hands of the bishop. That would have been a surprisingly easy term to comply with, as the early Saints understood the meaning of the word "surplus" to be any property they had which they didn't really need or have use for. If Brother Zeke was raising chickens, he got to keep all the chickens his family could eat for the year, plus enough to barter for other necessities, along with as many eggs as his family could consume or trade or sell for other necessities.  If he had extra hens and eggs beyond his family's needs, that was Zeke's surplus, and those went to the bishop for his tithe. These were chickens Zeke would barely miss, and the Lord made it that easy to part with his property on purpose. Tithing is not a test. It is meant to be practical, to accomplish a purpose. Paying it was not intended to be hard for anyone.

There was nothing new and unusual about this method of tithing. Joseph Smith clarified certain aspects of the law, as it has often been misunderstood. For instance, in Genesis 14 of the King James Version, we are left with the impression that Abram paid one tenth of all his possessions. That would have been a lot for Melchizedek to carry back, because Abram had a lot of possessions.

Yet in Joseph Smith's newer translation, we find that "Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need. (JST Genesis 14:39) Still a lot, but now we see it's not a tenth of everything. Abram gave only a tenth of his surplus. God has never required his people to "pay him first," or to give to the Church before meeting the needs of our families. God's law has always been extremely fair. But men always seem  eager to tweak God's law to their advantage. 

Joseph only mentions 1 true friend to Emma in his letters as Parley, After his day a lot has changed because of Brigham Young of whom there is so much written in history & church history to deny. Maybe for another day, but suffice for me to say is that he was part of  plot in Joseph's Murder and overthrowing the church! However the Masons didn't foresee all the converts coming by the Hand of the Lord! Just like the Book of Mormon times or the New Testament times or the Old Testament times there seems to be a cycle of righteousness then somehow corrupt priests rear there ugly head and so on... 

How long can rolling waters remain impure, what powers shall stay the heavens?