What Does the Bible Say About Tithing in the New Testament?

Quick Answer

The New Testament nowhere explicitly commands Christians to give ten percent, yet most of Christendom has continued the practice. The fault line is hermeneutical: does the Old Testament tithing law carry over into the new covenant, and if so, in what form? Those who see continuity between the Testaments insist the principle — at minimum — survives; those who emphasize the newness of the covenant argue the specific obligation died with the Mosaic law. Below is the map.

At a Glance

Axis	Debate
Covenant continuity	Tithing principle carries forward vs. Mosaic law abolished for Christians
Jesus and tithing	Matthew 23:23 endorses tithing vs. speaks to pre-cross context only
Malachi 3:10 applicability	Direct command to Christians vs. addressed to Israel under the old covenant
2 Corinthians 9:7	Replaces percentage giving vs. supplements but does not eliminate it
First-fruits vs. ten percent	Tithing is one expression of first-fruits giving vs. first-fruits and tithes are distinct categories

Key Passages

Matthew 23:23 — "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law."

Appears to say: Jesus affirms tithing as something "ought ye to have done."

Why it doesn't settle the question: Jesus is speaking to Pharisees before the cross, under the Mosaic covenant still in force. Craig Keener (The Gospel of Matthew, 2009) argues the statement addresses hypocrisy, not a universal mandate; D. A. Carson (Matthew, EBC, 1984) reads it as a positive endorsement of tithing that survives into the church age.

Luke 11:42 — "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God."

Appears to say: Same as Matthew 23:23 — tithing affirmed alongside justice.

Why it doesn't settle the question: The Lukan parallel intensifies the contextual problem. Ben Witherington III (The Gospel of Luke, 2001) emphasizes that "these ought ye to have done" addresses pre-Pentecost Jewish practice; Thomas Schreiner (New Testament Theology, 2008) contends the principle survives covenant transition.

2 Corinthians 9:6–7 — "He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly... Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity."

Appears to say: Giving is voluntary, Spirit-led, and proportional rather than fixed.

Why it doesn't settle the question: John Stott (The Message of 2 Corinthians, 1994) treats this as the normative New Testament giving framework, replacing percentage requirements. Randy Alcorn (Money, Possessions and Eternity, 2003) argues "purposeth in his heart" presupposes a prior principle (tithing) that then yields to Spirit-prompted generosity beyond ten percent.

Malachi 3:10 — "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house."

Appears to say: God commands a full tithe under threat and promise ("windows of heaven").

Why it doesn't settle the question: This is Old Testament, but regularly cited in New Testament tithing arguments. John MacArthur (Whose Money Is It Anyway?, 2000) insists the Malachi command is covenantally restricted to Israel; Russell Earl Kelly (Should the Church Teach Tithing?, 2000) provides extended argument that storehouse tithing was agricultural and temple-specific. Contrarily, David Jeremiah (The Handwriting on the Wall, 1992) applies it directly to contemporary Christians.

Hebrews 7:1–10 — "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

Appears to say: Tithing predates the Mosaic law (Abraham to Melchizedek) and thus survives its abolition.

Why it doesn't settle the question: Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin (Hebrews and James, NAC, 1992) read the Melchizedek typology as establishing Christ's priesthood, not a continuing tithe obligation. John Piper (Desiring God, 1986) argues the passage shows tithing's pre-Mosaic rootedness, making it a creation-order principle; F. F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, 1964) treats the passage as purely typological rather than prescriptive.

1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him."

Appears to say: Giving is proportional to income but no percentage is specified.

Why it doesn't settle the question: Gordon Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, 1987) sees this as evidence that New Testament giving is purposeful but non-quantified. Systematic theology advocates like Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994) read "as God hath prospered" as consistent with — and fulfilled by — a tithe baseline.

The Core Tension

The deepest fault line is hermeneutical, not exegetical: it concerns how the Mosaic law functions for Christians. If one adopts a covenant-theology framework (as in the Westminster Confession), the moral elements of the law — arguably including tithing as a response to God's ownership — carry forward unless explicitly abrogated. If one adopts a new-covenant or dispensational framework, the entire Mosaic economy is superseded, leaving only what is explicitly re-enacted in the New Testament. No additional data resolves this because the disagreement is about the interpretive framework itself. Both sides read the same passages; they differ on the prior question of what covenant the Christian inhabits. This is why the tithing debate has persisted for five centuries of Reformation and counter-Reformation without convergence.

Competing Positions

Position 1: Mandatory Ten Percent (Moral Law Continuity)

Claim: The tithe is a creation-order principle pre-dating and surviving the Mosaic law, and ten percent is the minimum Christians owe.
Key proponents: John MacArthur (earlier writings; God's Plan for Giving, 1975), David Jeremiah (The Handwriting on the Wall, 1992), Adrian Rogers (various sermons), Southern Baptist Convention majority pastoral tradition.
Key passages used: Hebrews 7:1–10 (pre-Mosaic precedent), Matthew 23:23 (Jesus' affirmation), Malachi 3:10 (storehouse principle applied cross-covenantally).
What it must downplay: 2 Corinthians 9:7's language of purposeful, non-compelled giving; the absence of any explicit tithe command in any New Testament epistle; the distinction between agricultural produce and monetary income in Levitical law.
Strongest objection: Russell Earl Kelly (Should the Church Teach Tithing?, 2000) demonstrates that the biblical tithe was always food from the land of Israel, never money or wages — making direct application to salaried Christians anachronistic.

Position 2: Grace Giving Replaces Tithing (New Covenant Discontinuity)

Claim: The Mosaic tithing system is fulfilled and abolished in Christ; Christians are called to Spirit-led, generous giving without a mandated percentage.
Key proponents: John Stott (The Message of 2 Corinthians, 1994), Russell Earl Kelly (Should the Church Teach Tithing?, 2000), David Croteau (Tithing After the Cross, 2010), much of the Baptist General Conference tradition.
Key passages used: 2 Corinthians 9:6–7 (purposeful, cheerful giving), 1 Corinthians 16:2 (proportional but unspecified), Galatians 3:24–25 (the law as tutor, now superseded).
What it must downplay: Hebrews 7's Melchizedek precedent (pre-Mosaic), Matthew 23:23's apparent endorsement, and the pastoral vacuum created by removing a concrete percentage guideline.
Strongest objection: Thomas Schreiner (40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, 2010) argues that removing quantitative guidance produces congregations that give significantly less than ten percent, effectively harming the church's mission under the banner of freedom.

Position 3: Ten Percent as Baseline Floor, Grace Giving Adds to It

Claim: The tithe is the starting point, not the ceiling; Christians under grace should exceed the Mosaic standard, not abandon it.
Key proponents: Randy Alcorn (Money, Possessions and Eternity, 2003), John Piper (Desiring God, 1986), Tim Keller (Generous Justice, 2010), Reformed Baptist tradition broadly.
Key passages used: Matthew 23:23 ("these ought ye to have done"), 2 Corinthians 9:6 (the generous reaper principle), Hebrews 7 (pre-Mosaic tithe as durable principle).
What it must downplay: The contextual restriction of Matthew 23:23 to pre-cross Jewish interlocutors; the absence of a New Testament text explicitly setting ten percent as a Christian floor.
Strongest objection: Craig Blomberg (Neither Poverty nor Riches, 1999) notes that "more than the law" hermeneutics, without textual grounding, can mandate whatever the preacher finds pastorally convenient.

Position 4: Proportional Giving Supersedes Percentage Giving

Claim: The New Testament shifts from a fixed percentage to a percentage proportional to wealth — wealthier Christians owe a higher effective rate, poorer Christians may owe less.
Key proponents: Craig Blomberg (Neither Poverty nor Riches, 1999; Heart, Mind and Money, 2014), Luke Timothy Johnson (Sharing Possessions, 1981), Sondra Wheeler (Wealth as Peril and Obligation, 1995).
Key passages used: Luke 21:1–4 (widow's mite — percentage of total, not absolute amount), 2 Corinthians 8:12–14 (equality principle in collection), 1 Timothy 6:17–19 (rich Christians commanded to be "rich in good works").
What it must downplay: The simplicity of a uniform ten percent rule that is pastorally easy to communicate; Hebrews 7's apparent fixity of the tithe concept.
Strongest objection: Thomas Schreiner notes that progressive giving percentages, however equitable in theory, have no quantitative anchor in the New Testament and rely on inference from economic ethics rather than direct teaching.

Position 5: Tithing as Wisdom Tradition, Not Law

Claim: The ten percent tithe is a wise, tested, cross-cultural starting discipline — neither a covenant command nor a mere suggestion — functioning like fasting: a recommended practice without explicit New Testament mandate.
Key proponents: Scot McKnight (Jesus and His Death, 2005; various blog writings), some Anabaptist and emergent-church voices, Richard Foster (Celebration of Discipline, 1978) by analogy.
Key passages used: Matthew 6:19–21 (treasure orientation), Luke 12:33–34 (sell and give), 2 Corinthians 9:7 (willing heart), 1 Corinthians 9:14 (those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel — supporting ministry financially).
What it must downplay: The hard covenantal language of Malachi 3:10 ("robbing God"), which implies obligation not wisdom; the Hebrews 7 typological argument for continuity.
Strongest objection: Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994) argues that framing tithing as optional wisdom tradition predictably produces underfunded churches, and that the Mosaic law's moral core — giving proportionally to God — is not culturally contingent.

Tradition Profiles

Roman Catholic

Official position: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2043) lists supporting the Church among the precepts of the Church, but specifies no percentage. The Code of Canon Law (c. 222) requires the faithful to "assist with the needs of the Church." Historical canonical tradition accepted ten percent as a norm (see Gratian's Decretum, 12th century).
Internal debate: Post-Vatican II pastoral practice moved away from tithing language toward "stewardship." Some parishes teach ten percent; others teach proportional giving; official documents do not specify. Lay movements like the Stewardship of Treasure program encourage tithing without mandating it.
Pastoral practice: Parish annual appeals, second collections, and diocesan assessments function as de facto multi-layered giving systems that rarely reference ten percent explicitly.

Reformed / Calvinist

Official position: The Westminster Confession of Faith (XXI.1) acknowledges proportional worship obligations but does not specify a tithe percentage. The Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 110–111 addresses giving as part of the eighth commandment framework.
Internal debate: Continental Reformed (Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed Church) tends toward grace-giving without a mandated percentage; Scottish Presbyterian and Southern Presbyterian traditions have historically advocated tithing as the "moral minimum." R. C. Sproul held tithing as a continuing obligation; John Frame is more cautious.
Pastoral practice: Many Reformed congregations teach tithing in membership classes as a baseline while insisting the tithe is not legally binding in the Mosaic sense. Actual giving rates vary widely.

Baptist (Southern Baptist Convention)

Official position: No confessional document (Baptist Faith & Message 2000) specifies a percentage, but SBC resolutions have repeatedly affirmed tithing as the biblical standard (e.g., SBC Resolution on Stewardship, 1992, 2019).
Internal debate: Significant tension between MacArthur-influenced "tithing is mandatory" preaching and Croteau/Kelly-influenced "tithing is not a New Testament command" scholarship. The 2010s saw notable Baptist academics publish against mandatory tithing while SBC pastoral culture continued to promote it.
Pastoral practice: The majority of SBC churches formally teach ten percent as the expectation for members, often presenting Malachi 3:10 as a direct command.

Eastern Orthodox

Official position: No synodal decree specifies a tithe percentage. The tradition relies on canonical support for the clergy and the poor (Apostolic Canon 4) and patristic teaching on almsgiving. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, 77) explicitly criticized Christians giving less than Jewish tithes.
Internal debate: The tradition emphasizes almsgiving as theosis-related practice more than quantified tithing. There is no significant internal debate about ten percent specifically; debates concern the proportion of giving directed to parishes versus direct almsgiving.
Pastoral practice: Orthodox parishes typically do not conduct stewardship campaigns specifying percentages; liturgical collections, candle purchases, and memorial donations are the practical giving vehicles.

Pentecostal / Charismatic

Official position: The Assemblies of God affirms tithing as a biblical mandate in its Bylaws and Statement of Fundamental Truths (supporting documents). The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) likewise teaches the tithe as a divine requirement.
Internal debate: Prosperity gospel offshoots (Word of Faith) treat Malachi 3:10 as a transactional covenant for material return — a position critiqued by mainstream Pentecostals like Gordon Fee (The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels, 1985) and Roger Stronstad. The health-and-wealth reading of tithing is a significant internal fault line.
Pastoral practice: Tithing is often publicly taught from the pulpit and reinforced through testimonies of financial blessing following giving. Malachi 3:10 is among the most preached tithing texts in Pentecostal contexts.

Historical Timeline

Pre-313 CE — Early Church Practice The Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century) commands first-fruits offerings to prophets and bishops without specifying ten percent. Justin Martyr (First Apology, c. 155) describes voluntary Sunday collection proportional to means. There is no evidence of a uniform tithe in the pre-Constantinian church. Irenaeus and Origen cited the tithe as an Old Testament precursor that grace-giving exceeds, not replaces. This matters because it undermines the claim that tithing was the universal early church practice.

567–585 CE — Conciliar Mandation The Council of Tours (567) and the Council of Macon (585) in Frankish Gaul issued the first conciliar mandates requiring Christians to pay tithes, with ecclesiastical penalties for non-compliance. This represents the shift from voluntary giving to legally enforceable church taxation — a development driven by the church's need to support clergy and monasteries following the collapse of Roman civic infrastructure. This matters because it shows tithing as a medieval legal institution, complicating claims that the practice derives from unbroken apostolic tradition.

16th Century — Reformation Disputes The Reformers fragmented on tithing. Luther (Temporal Authority, 1523) argued tithes were civil obligations to support clergy — not binding moral law. Calvin (Institutes, IV.xii) maintained church support was a moral obligation but did not specify ten percent. Anabaptists rejected church tithes as entanglement with civil authority. Meanwhile, the Church of England retained tithing through the Tithe Acts (1836 finally commuting tithes to rent charges). This matters because the Reformation produced no Protestant consensus, directly generating the contemporary evangelical debate.

1990s–2010s — Academic Challenge Russell Earl Kelly's dissertation (Should the Church Teach Tithing?, 2000), David Croteau's Tithing After the Cross (2010), and Scot McKnight's popular writings challenged mandatory tithing on exegetical grounds and gained significant scholarly reception. Simultaneously, the prosperity gospel's intense use of Malachi 3:10 provoked backlash from evangelical scholars including Gordon Fee and D. A. Carson. This two-front pressure — academic and pastoral — produced the current state of open debate within evangelicalism that shows no sign of resolving.

Common Misreadings

Misreading 1: "Jesus commanded tithing in Matthew 23:23." The claim: Jesus says "these ought ye to have done" (tithing), so Christians are commanded to tithe. Why it fails: Jesus is addressing Pharisees operating under the Mosaic covenant before the crucifixion. The interpretive context is the pre-cross Jewish economy, not post-Pentecost church life. Craig Keener (The Gospel of Matthew, 2009) notes that Matthew 23 is a sequence of woes on Pharisees, not a church constitution. Applying the text as a universal Christian mandate commits the contextual fallacy of ignoring the covenantal address.

Misreading 2: "Malachi 3:10 proves Christians who don't tithe are robbing God." The claim: Since God accused Israel of robbing him by withholding tithes, the same charge applies to Christians. Why it fails: Malachi 3:10 is addressed to the restored community of Israel under the Mosaic covenant, specifically concerning the Levitical temple system. The "storehouse" was the temple treasury for Levites, not a church budget. Russell Earl Kelly (Should the Church Teach Tithing?, 2000) catalogs every Old Testament tithe text to demonstrate that the Mosaic tithe was food from the land of Canaan — not income, not money — and was specifically for Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans on a rotating basis. Direct application to a salaried Christian donating to a church building fund collapses multiple distinctions.

Misreading 3: "The New Testament upgrades tithing — so you should give more than ten percent." The claim: Under grace we are held to a higher standard, meaning ten percent is the floor. Why it fails: This argument assumes tithing was the Old Testament standard, then adds to it. But as Craig Blomberg (Neither Poverty nor Riches, 1999) documents, the Old Testament operated with multiple tithes — the Levitical tithe (Lev. 27:30–33), the festival tithe (Deut. 14:22–27), and the poor tithe every three years (Deut. 14:28–29) — totaling closer to 20–23% in observant practice. The "upgrade from ten percent" argument works only by selecting the lowest of several Old Testament giving requirements.

Open Questions

If the Hebrews 7 Melchizedek typology establishes tithing as pre-Mosaic and therefore durable, does it also establish the percentage (a tenth), or only the principle of giving to a priest-king?
Does 2 Corinthians 9:7 ("as he purposeth in his heart") function as a replacement framework for percentage giving, or as a description of the right internal disposition within an assumed tithe structure?
Should the multiple Old Testament tithes (Levitical, festival, poor tithe) be considered one ten-percent command or three to four distinct obligations totaling 20–23%?
Does Matthew 23:23's covenantal context (pre-cross, addressing Pharisees) limit its applicability to Christians, or does Jesus' endorsement of the practice carry across the covenant transition?
If a church explicitly teaches tithing as mandatory law, does this contradict Galatians 3's argument that law-keeping is not the basis of Christian relationship with God — or does it operate in a sufficiently different domain?
Is the absence of an explicit tithe command in the Pauline letters an argument from silence (theologically weak) or a significant datum, given that Paul addresses financial giving multiple times without invoking the tithe category?
For communities where ten percent would be genuinely harmful (extreme poverty), does 2 Corinthians 8:12 ("if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath") constitute a covenantal exemption or a universal principle that reframes all percentage-based giving?

Passages analyzed above

Malachi 3:10 — "Bring ye all the tithes"; most cited Old Testament proof-text.

Tension-creating parallels

Frequently cited but actually irrelevant