Is Circumcision Merely Part of the Old Covenant?

In the early history of the New Testament Church, a controversy arose over whether Gentiles in the Church needed to be circumcised. The controversy is formally settled in Acts 15, although there are indications that certain Jews continued teaching this heresy. Most people wrongly conclude that the entire system of Old Covenant law was abolished as a result of the decision of the Acts 15 conference regarding circumcision. As an introduction to the topic of circumcision in the New Covenant, I'd like to examine the origin of circumcision and establish its significance as more than just a part of the Old Covenant law.

Acts 15: Did They Abolish the Law?

Acts 15 tells the story of how the early church resolved a doctrinal dispute concerning whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. The misunderstanding of this account has contributed to the modern day confusion about the question of whether Christians should observe the law or not. I'd like to examine the account and give a clear answer for why this chapter does not free Christians from keeping God's law.

Let's begin by looking at the statements made by the Pharisees that caused the dispute to begin with:

Acts 15:1
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

What Does God Require of You?

What does God require of you? This is a subject of much contention among those who read the bible. For ancient Israel, God made it extremely clear what He expected from them under the Old Covenant:

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I commanded you today for your good?

God gave them an elaborate and detailed list of laws that they were to keep, and many people think that these laws are not what God intends for us under the New Covenant. If God doesn't expect us to keep His law, then what does He require of us?

Arguments Against Tithing Debunked - Part 2 - Was Tithing Disannulled in Hebrews 7?

I would like to first answer the question as stated in the title of this article and then generalize the question to "is tithing disannulled anywhere in the New Covenant?" The reason for starting with this very specific argument about Hebrews 7 is that this is one place that anti-tithers harp on make an argument against tithing. Indeed, most of Christianity today uses Hebrews 7 as a "proof" that the "Old Covenant" law of God is no longer required - of course, they then pick and choose for themselves what they consider to be Old Covenant law! After a careful analysis of this chapter, I'll show in a broader sense that neither tithing nor any other part of the law of God has ever been "disannulled" in the sense that it is no longer in effect, as so many today want you to think.

For starters, let's review the anti-tithing argument in question. It goes as follows:

Hebrews 7 is the only place in the bible after Christ's death that tithing appears, and it refers to tithe as a commandment and law in verse 5. Then Hebrews 7:12 says that the law has changed because the priesthood has changed, and verse 18 says that the commandment is disannulled. Therefore, the commandment and law that are "disannulled" in Hebrews 7 are the laws of tithing, and Christians are no longer required to tithe like people did in the Old Covenant.

This is the argument that I'm going to now refute by examining Hebrews 7. Let's read through the chapter now to try to understand, from an objective standpoint, the context and purpose of the scriptures:

Hebrews 7:1-7
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all... remains a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 

The Old Covenant established the Levites as a tribe of priests and appointed them to receive the tithes from the rest of those under the covenant - the other 11 tribes of Israel. Is tithing the central issue here? No. Tithing is being used as a device to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. Therefore, since Abraham is greater than Levi, Melchizedek is greater than Levi:

Hebrews 7:8-10
Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 

The sole purpose of mentioning tithes is to demonstrate that Melchizedek is greater than Levi since tithes are given from the lesser to the greater. Why is this relevant? What point is the author of Hebrews making? Keep reading for the answer.

Hebrews 7:11
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Now it should become clear: the author of Hebrews is showing the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood and the need for a greater priesthood. Now that we are in the proper mindset, we have come to the infamous verse 12, the verse that anti-tithers say "changes" the law of tithing:

Hebrews 7:12-17
For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 

We have now come to the heart of the matter: Christ is a priest, but He did not come from the tribe of Levi - He was from the tribe of Judah. The law only allowed Levites to be priests. Therefore, what change of the law is being discussed? The law which states that only Levites can be priests! There is absolutely NO indication from the context that a change in tithing is being discussed! But we still have one more verse to go: the infamous "disanullment" in verse 18. Let's see what we make of that statement now that we understand the point that is being made:

Hebrews 7:15-18
And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Notice that the "former commandment" was annulled "because of its weakness and unprofitableness," because Christ came as a priest "according to the power of an endless life" rather than "according to the power of a fleshly commandment." The fleshly commandment is, again, the one that states that only the sons of Aaron could be priests.

Now that we understand what Hebrews 7 is saying, let's answer the argument that I posed in the beginning. The only law or commandment that is specifically addressed for the purpose of being changed or annulled is the commandment that states that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi. It cannot in any way be construed as indictment of tithing in particular! The more general argument, which I also promised to address, is that of mainstream Christianity as a whole, which says that Hebrews 7:18 refers to an annulment of the entire Old Covenant law. Again, that is not what we have found - and I'll tell you precisely why.

First of all, consider the nature of the "change of the law" that is being made and the "annulment" that is taking place. The law states that only Levites could be priests. Christ was not a Levite, but, being a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" and "according to the power of an endless life," He is a greater priest than any Levite. Therefore, the only "change" of the law is to allow for a greater priesthood - a priesthood that already existed before the Levitical priesthood commanded through Moses, since Melchizedek was identified as the "priest of the Most High God" hundreds of years before Levi was even born.

So what manner of "change" and "annulment" is this? Answer: it's a change that invalidates priesthood according to flesh and replaces it with priesthood according to the power of God. Has the law become weaker or stronger as a result? Stronger! Hebrews 7:18 itself says that this causes "the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." Because the priesthood is now laid on a better foundation (its original foundation, in fact), we now have a better hope and are able to draw near to God in a way that was not possible before.

The conclusion of the first point is that the "change of the law" serves only to allow for a greater priesthood to take the place of the Levitical priesthood. My second point is that this is typical of the entire New Covenant. A true "annulment" of the law of the priesthood would state that there is no longer a priesthood - but this is totally false! Christ is a priest! He's the High Priest, actually, of a better priesthood. More generally, none of God's law has been "annulled" without being superseded by a better law that more fully captures God's spiritual intent of the law! For proof of this fact, one need look no further than the words of Christ:

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Heaven and earth have not passed away - and neither has one word of God's law. Any "changes" are, as I stated, changes that uphold the spiritual intent of the law. Christ gave examples of these types of "changes" in the Sermon on the Mount: it's not sufficient to abstain from murder; rather, you can't even hate your brother in your heart. It's not sufficient to abstain from adultery; rather, you can't even look at a woman with lust. As a matter of fact, prophecy indicates that EXALTING the law was one of the purposes of the Messiah!

Isaiah 41:21
The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

In the King James, the word "exalt" is translated as "magnify." The Hebrew word, according to Strong's, means "to make great, to cause to grow, to magnify." Not only has God's law not been abolished, annulled, abrogated, or whatever fancy language you want to use to say that it is "done away" - the fact is, Christ came to reveal the true spirit of the law, which is even greater and more honorable than the letter of the law.

In conclusion, as I stated from the beginning: God's commandment to tithe is NOT specifically targeted in Hebrews 7. Furthermore, NONE of God's requirements have been weakened; rather, they have been magnified and made better, so that we might receive a better reward than in the Old Covenant. 

In view of this fact, regarding tithing in particular, it is easily seen that there is no way to get off the hook as far as tithing goes. God's law is magnified in the New Covenant, and that includes the laws of tithing! If you're still reading this, then you already know that I've said too much for one post - so perhaps I'll save the topic of how the laws of tithing are magnified for a future article.

My next post on debunking anti-tithing arguments will bring us to the next logical point, as I laid out in the Introduction: now that I've shown that tithing is still required by Christians, I will refute the notion that ministers in God's church are not qualified to receive tithes since they are not Levites.

Additionally, I think that at some point I would like to take a detour to explain what is meant by the "weakness and unprofitableness" of the Old Covenant. If it was so weak and unprofitable, why did God make the Israelites agree to it in the first place?

Malachi 3:6 - "I, the LORD, Do Not Change"

God’s law is no exception to Malachi 3:6 – God does not change! Contrary to popular thought, Jesus did not come preaching a “new” religion of love. Instead, He came declaring that the Israelites had never truly embraced the love that God had commanded through the law and the prophets. This is clearly seen in the following passage from Zechariah:

Zechariah 7:9-11

 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.' But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry.

Mercy, Not Sacrifice (Part 2)

The second time that Christ quotes Hosea 6:6 (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”) is found in Matthew 12:1-8 (a contextual discussion of this verse can be found in What Does God Want?, and also see Part 1 of this snack). Here we have the disciples picking grain from a field on the Sabbath. This prompts the Pharisees to point out to Jesus that they are breaking the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:3-7

He answered, “[David] entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread – which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.” 

Some people look at these circumstances and say that Christ was changing how the Sabbath was to be observed. While he did take issues with how the Pharisees observed the Sabbath, he was not changing how God originally commanded us to keep the Sabbath. The Pharisees had built a strict system of traditions in addition to God’s law in order to make sure that people wouldn’t be breaking the law. For example, the Pharisees had rules about how much you were allowed to carry on the Sabbath, thinking “if you can’t carry anything, then you can’t do any work that might involve carrying something.” Strict rules such as these were not given by God, and that’s why Jesus refers to them as “commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9) – and that’s exactly what Jesus took issue with here.

In His response, Jesus first cites the time when David and his men were fed with bread from the temple, found in 1 Samuel 21. The point that He is making with this reference is that God’s law of love can, in special circumstances, supersede the physical observances required by the law, such as if a person or animal falls into a hole on the Sabbath, you're allowed to pull them out (Luke 14:5). What David and his men did was worse than what the disciples were doing because God specifically made a law that only the priests could eat that bread, and yet David is not condemned for it. On the other hand, what the priests did in the temple was required by the law, and their Sabbath day duties easily violated the Pharisees so-called “law” (i.e. the “commandments of men”). Jesus then pulls out Hosea 6:6 to drive home the point that God’s law is not just about physical observances, but about love. God didn’t mind if we gather food to eat on the Sabbath (as long as we are doing it to feed ourselves and not for profit); therefore, the Pharisees “condemned the innocent.” Finally, Jesus asserts His authority, telling them “the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.” Jesus owns the Sabbath – It’s His! Therefore, He knows what’s allowed and what’s not.

It should be clear then that Jesus was in no way trying to change the Sabbath (or any of God’s law, for that matter) in justifying what His disciples did. Instead, He rebuked the Pharisees for unrightfully making the Sabbath a burden with extraneous requirements rather than observing it with their hearts, and it’s all about the heart.